DISPOSAL OR DONATION?

UNDERSTANDING
CONSUMER DISPOSAL CHOICES FOR USED
GOODS

Dayna Simpson, Department of Management, Monash University, Australia,

dayna.simpson@monash.edu

Kathleen Riach, Department of Management, Monash University, Australia

Damien Power, Department of Management, University of Melbourne, Australia

Daniel Guide, Smeal College of Business, Penn State University, PA

ABSTRACT
Reverse supply chains rely on used goods to be returned by consumers to disposal points.
Very little operations management research however has explored consumer preferences
during this process. We identify two main disposal profiles that depend on a consumers:
a. attachment to their possession, and b. their desire to give.

Page 1 of 14
INTRODUCTION

We expect consumers to buy new products and as scholars, invest significant effort
toward the why and how of this. We spend almost no time however, exploring what
consumers do with their possessions once they no longer hold utility for them. A
consumers possessions at the end of their use are a potentially valuable commodity but
also difficult to economically collect from consumers (Kang and Schoenung, 2006;
Gregory and Kirchain, 2008; Atasu, Toktay and Van Wassenhove, 2013). The dominant
assumption of the operations management literature is that consumers are a rational and
economically motivated actor in the reverse supply chain (Plambeck and Wang, 2009).
The consumers role in the reverse supply chain is to dispose of their possessions at an
ideal time and place so that collection efficiency and volume are optimized
(Ovchinnikov, 2011). Consumers are in fact quite reluctant to relinquish their possessions
in a timely fashion (Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005). As we describe, the relationship
between a consumer and their possessions will significantly impact a consumers disposal
choices as to how and when they dispose of a used good. This will impact the volume,
timing and condition of goods entering the reverse supply chain.

The complexity of the disposal decision for individuals is highly relevant to the study of
reverse supply chains. Yet it is an area of research that has attracted surprisingly little
attention. While consumers have been partly considered in forecasts of product returns,
packaging system design, or take-back policies (Toktay, 2004; Plambeck and Wang,
2009; Ovchinnikov, 2011), their decisions leading up to and including disposal have
rarely been explored. In decentralized and uncoordinated reverse supply chains in
particular, cost structure of the collection process is a critical success factor (Atasu et al,
2013). Further, a majority of studies on the supply side of the reverse supply chain have
considered factors only at the retailer-remanufacturer or remanufacturer-manufacturer
level (Clottey, Benton and Srivastava, 2012).

Consumers increasingly avoid disposal by moving their used possessions into storage
(Haws et al, 2012). Popular television shows such as Hoarders illustrate more extreme
instances of consumers not wanting to dispose of their possessions. At a basic level
however, many consumers simply may not know how to dispose of their possessions
(Saphores, Nixon, Ogunseitan and Shapiro, 2009). Others worry about how the next
person or organization will use their items (Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005; Brough and
Isaac, 2012). Almost all consumers attribute meaning to their possessions over a lifetime
of use (Belk, 1988). As we describe, disposal is far from a straightforward decision for
many consumers.

Our paper is structured as follows. First, we describe the background to our study and
existing, relevant literature. Second, we present a model that describes the disposal
process faced regularly by consumers. Third, we assess our model using both the results
of interviews with consumers and a large consumer survey. Fourth and finally, we
present our results as well as discuss their implications and the opportunities they present
for future research.

Page 2 of 14
BACKGROUND

REVERSE SUPPLY CHAIN

The perspectives of the manufacturer, retailer and policy maker have dominated past
studies on the reverse supply chain (Webster and Mitra, 2007). Consumers however are
an important part of the reverse supply chain. Consumers are effectively a supplier in
this system and can influence volume, collection efficiency and condition of used goods
(Goo, Liang, Huang, and Zu, 2008). They are an important yet poorly understood
stakeholder in the reverse supply chain (Atasu, Guide and Van Wassenhove, 2008;
Jacobs and Subramaniam, 2012; Atasu, Ozdemir and Van Wassenhove, 2013).

All reverse supply chains however require a steady and cost effective supply of material
if they are to be economically viable (Kang and Schoenung, 2006; Gregory and Kirchain,
2008). As a result, how firms obtain the material needed to supply their reverse supply
chain (e.g. product returns) is a popular topic in operations management. Scholars have
explored optimal models of materials return predominantly from the perspective of the
manufacturer (Clottey et al, 2012; Atasu and Van Wassenhove, 2012). Customers are
typically the retailer who will return goods on behalf of consumers. Occasionally the
consumer is factored into these material return models however usually only with a small
set of fixed choices (Savaskan and Van Wassenhove, 2006; Guide and Li, 2010;
Ovchinnikov, 2011). These models generally assume that consumers are: a. economically
motivated, and b. likely to return goods at a stable rate given the right incentive
(Plambeck and Wang, 2009).

A related body of research that explores when and why consumers recycle offers some
more specific insight into the role of consumers in materials return. These studies suggest
that a consumers recycling decision is influenced predominantly by personal and
demographic factors. These include the effort required to recycle, existing awareness of
recycling, personal environmental goals, past recycling experience and the recycling
message itself (Lord, 1994; Schultz and Oskamp, 1996; White et al, 2011; Saphores,
Ogunseitan and Shapiro, 2012). A consumers relationship however to a possession being
recycled or potentially available for recycling has not previously been addressed.

DISPOSAL OF POSSESSIONS
While scholars have spent much of the last century studying the ways in which
consumers buy and consume products, very little research has explored how consumers
dispose of them. Yet consumers presumably do not store a lifetime of possessions in their
homes. Practically speaking, consumers have several disposal options available to them
that include sale, donation, recycling, trade-in and landfill, among others. Disposal of
used possessions should be a simple and commonly used process for consumers. Theories
relevant to disposition however suggest that disposal is associated with loss by many
individuals (Kahneman et al, 1990; Belk, 1988; Haws et al, 2012). Consumers associate
memories and emotion with their possessions and give them iconicity that increases the
complexity of the disposal decision (Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005).

Page 3 of 14
A small group of researchers have recently sought to better understand the disposal
decisions of consumers. Disposal theory suggests that an individuals disposal decision is
primarily influenced by: a. situational factors, b. factors intrinsic to the product, and c.
psychological factors relevant to the owner of the possession (Jacoby et al, 1977;
Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005). Research in this domain focuses on a consumers
disposal decision less from the perspective of how (which is common in operations
management), and more from a position of why. Consumers, in general, struggle with
the decision to relinquish certain possessions. Difficulty letting go of possessions can be
seen in parents that hold on to their childrens clothing long after they have grown up
(Sego, 2010; Phillips and Sego, 2011). Or during transition periods for families such as
moving parents into assisted living and bereavement (Price et al, 2000; Curasi et al, 2004;
Ekerdt et al, 2012).

Collectively, studies on disposal behavior have established a link between a consumers

bond with their possessions and subsequent patterns of possession retention and disposal.
In addition, they highlight that consumers often require a moving-on process or rituals
that help them cope with possession loss from disposal (Roster, 2001; Lastovicka and
Fernandez, 2005). These can include selecting buyers for personal rather than financial
reasons, looking for common a identity in a buyer, cleaning objects before sale, or
releasing the story of their possession to a buyer (Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005;
Ballantine and Creery, 2010; Cherrier and Rahman, 2010). Sellers of wedding dresses for
example frequently seek to pass on the story of their dress as a means to extend its life or
move on from a divorce (Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005). Without such rituals or
interventions, consumers are less likely to dispose if their possessions, thereby delaying
and limiting rates of material supply.

ATTACHMENT TO POSSESSIONS
Consumers do not simply interact with their possessions as though they hold only
functional value and a pre-determined date for disposal or replacement (Belk, 1988;
Dommer and Swaminathan, 2013). Consumers in fact form significant bonds with their
possessions and the brands that represent groups of possessions. In the case of durable
goods in particular, such as automobiles, musical instruments, computers and phones,
consumers engage with these possessions in ways that fulfil emotional or social deficits
(Lastovicka and Sirianni, 2011). How a consumer engages with their possessions (use
frequency, location, and purpose) or personal events that reflect on possession ownership
(e.g. starting college or divorce) each influence the relationship between a consumer and
their possession (Shih and Venkatesh, 2004; Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005; Dommer
and Swaminathan, 2013). Even the decision process used during purchase can influence
this relationship (e.g. length of search, product novelty, intended use) (Bolton and Alba,
2012; Brough and Isaac, 2012).

Several very basic personal beliefs can also encourage possession-based attachment such
as conservationism or frugality (Lastovicka et al, 1999). A fear of unused utility in a
possession can also increase the reluctance of a consumer to dispose of it as well as
impact how they dispose of it (e.g. trade-in versus donation) (Okada, 2001; Brough and
Isaac, 2012). Finally, some consumers simply use their possessions to fill a perceived gap

Page 4 of 14
in their life such as a lack of intimacy or belonging (Belk, 1998; Ahuvia, 2005;
Lastovicka and Sirianni, 2011). The drivers and outcomes of possession attachment are
both varied and complex. Possession-based attachment may encourage consumers to
nurture their possessions with further purchases, but can also lead to possession retention
well past an items functional life (Lastovicka and Sirianni, 2011). Possession-based
attachment may also restrict a consumers desire to purchase replacement products
(Okada, 2001). Many consumers are not directly aware of their attachment to a
possession and will use a range of justifications to explain their ownership patterns
(Haws et al, 2012). Overall, regardless of its source, attachment to possessions is a
critical precursor to a consumers reluctance to dispose of their possessions.

DESIRE TO GIVE, TIMING AND OTHER EFFECTS

Desire to give
In addition to the processes already described, a behavior less commonly associated with
disposal is that of giving ones possessions away to those in need (donation). A desire to
help others can lead to the donation of goods, labor or money to charity or others in
need (Grant et al, 2008; Gneezy, Imas, Brown and Nelson, 2012). Recycling can also be
viewed as a form of morally driven behavior, particularly where consumers have an
existing concern for the environment (Lord, 1994). Charitable behaviors are driven by
several factors including a persons emotional state, sense of belonging, and how the
donation appeal is framed (Aquino and Reed, 2002; Lee and Shrum, 2012; White,
MacDonnell and Ellard, 2012). Where an act of giving can be closely related to its
benefits, such as knowing the recipient or feeling empathy for the recipient, giving
motivations are increased (White et al, 2012).

The desire to give to or help others however is not equal in all people. Charitable
organizations must invest substantial effort to obtain donations of funds and goods,
highlighting an equal reluctance to give. Furthermore, giving behaviors can be both
unconditional (altruistic) as well as conditional (reciprocal), the latter being driven by
conservatism, expectations of benefits, and self-interest (Cialdini et al, 1987; Lastovicka
et al, 1999; Sousa et al, 2010). Studies have shown that donation behavior is often seen as
a social obligation rather than something that fulfils a persons desire to help others
(White and Peloza, 2009; Knutsson et al, 2013).

Timing

The disposal decision can also be influenced by factors external to the possession such as
demographics, infrastructure, social norms and timing. The length of time for which a
person owns a possession does not always affect possession attachment (Kahneman et al,
1990; Dommer and Swaminathan, 2013). The decision to relinquish a possession
however can be influenced by the time allowed to make the decision. Where a person is
asked to give up their possession immediately, their sense of loss will be experienced in
the present. Rogers and Bazermen (2008) for example found that people are more willing
to make decisions regarding things they should do (rather than want to do) if they can
delay the choice to the future. In addition, individuals like to delay decisions that are seen

Page 5 of 14
as socially desirable but not necessarily something they want to do (e.g. recycling)
(White et al, 2011).

CONCEPTUAL MODEL
While we know that disposal can be an emotional process for many, very little empirical
analysis has sought to validate the relationship between attachment and disposal. On the
one hand, attachment is likely to limit timely disposal or at least elicit a strong emotional
response to the idea of disposal for some possessions (Sego, 2010). On the other hand
however, consumers are better able to engage with the idea of disposal where they are
able to utilize disposal rituals such as distancing, self-reference or valence change
(Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005). While attachment is proposed to limit consumers
willingness to dispose of their possessions, a counter-intuitive mechanism such as a
desire to give to others or a decision delay is proposed to intervene and change this
relationship. Based on this general assumption, we provide a conceptual model as
described in Figure 1 and explained in further detail below.

---- INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE ----

Initially, we propose that an underlying mechanism, attachment, forms the foundation for
a consumers reluctance to dispose of their possessions. This emotion will limit what
should be a straightforward choice between disposal channels:

H1. Attachment to possessions has a negative relationship with all disposal choices.

Second, we propose that a consumers desire to give, without regard to possession

attachment, will have a positive relationship with disposal choice. Opposite to being
overly attached to ones possessions, is to not be at all concerned with giving them up.
This can include being willing to donate ones goods to other individuals, charities,
commercial collectors or recyclers without an expectation of reciprocity. A desire to help
and give to others is the psychological foil to a persons love for their possessions. It may
also act as a process through which an individual can help to justify the decision to
relinquish their possessions.

The relationship between wanting to keep and wanting to give however, although
intuitively linked, has not been explored empirically. Being able to motivate consumers
underlying altruism in relation to possession disposal could feasibly increase the disposal
rate of durable goods:

H2. A desire to give to others has a positive relationship with all disposal choices.

Third, we assess this basic desire to give to others relative to a potential conflict between
wanting to give and wanting to keep a specific possession. While a consumer may
express general charitable intentions, they may still be reluctant to donate or recycle
possessions they are highly attached to. A desire to give to others could reduce the highly
self-oriented nature of possession attachment and increase the likelihood of disposal.

Page 6 of 14
Giving desire will reduce the negative influence of attachment on disposal choice and
lead to greater rates of disposal:

H3. The relationship between attachment to possessions and disposal choices is

moderated by a desire to give to others.

In addition, by deferring a decision to the future, a perceived loss becomes a more

abstract and acceptable concept for the individual. People make decisions that better
reflect their ideal, socially acceptable selves if the decision can be delayed to a point in
the future (Trope and Liberman, 2000; Rogers and Bazermen, 2008). We propose that the
timeframe within which a person is asked to make the decision to relinquish a possession
will influence their disposal decision. Delaying the disposal decision allows an individual
to feel more comfortable with loss particularly where attachment to the possession is
high:

H4. When framed as a decision in the future, attachment to possessions has a positive
relationship with all disposal choices.

Finally, in opposition to the above, a high desire to give will be negatively influenced by
a decision delay. In fact, a delay in giving may present a negative outcome for more
altruistic individuals:

H5. When framed as a decision in the future, a desire to give has a negative relationship
with all disposal choices.

STUDY METHOD
We chose to study electronic products, particularly personal computers, because they are
a valuable waste but also increasingly play a significant role in consumers lives. These
types of possessions are seen as objects that reflect a consumers social status and can
play a critical role in their ability to work, socialize and interact with the world (Bruner
and Kumar, 2007). Consumers can love their computers in ways that represent romantic
and fatuous attachment (Lastovicka and Sirianni, 2011).

Study 1 Interviews with consumers

We initially sought to interview individuals who owned personal computers in order to
better understand the relationship between attachment and disposal. The use of qualitative
interview method is frequently used in studies of the emotional dimensions of disposal
(Roster, 2001; Lastovicka and Fernandez, 2005; Lastovicka and Sirianni, 2011). A semi-
structured interview method allowed us to explore the different roles that computers play
in consumers lives as well as delve into the many dimensions of attachment. We also
sought to understand consumers preferences for disposal of their computers both in the
past and in the future.

Study 2 Survey
Data

Page 7 of 14
We developed a survey instrument using a mix of previously validated scales and our
findings from the interviews. The final survey was distributed to a random sample of
consumers located throughout Australia using a professional survey service that owned a
national consumer database. We received completed surveys from a sample of 250
consumers with demographics as shown in table 1.

Measures
Attachment
In measuring Attachment, we sought to identify deep commitment to the selected
possession. We used items from Lastovicka and Sirianni's (2011) study on possession
attachment that reflected enduring commitment to a possession. A final item was drawn
from Okada (2001) to assess currency of an owners attachment to the possession through
expected future enjoyment from the possession.
Disposal
Disposal choices for individuals were drawn from past studies on computer disposal and
aligned with available disposal options in the region of the survey population. We split
disposal choice into two variables Charitable options and Non-Charitable options. The
former only non-reciprocal charitable options (e.g. donation to a family member, friend,
charity, and child-in-need (after Eingar and Levontin, 2013). The latter included more
commercial options likely to lead to resale, reuse or recycle (manufacturer, local
government collection, recycler, and door-to-door collector) (after Babbitt et al, 2011).
Desire to Give
A desire to give to others, or prosocial behavior is defined as intentional actions to
help or benefit others, such as helpful interventions, volunteer work, and donating money
or blood (Lee and Shrum, 2012:p.533). We used Grant et als (2008) scale for perceived
prosocial identity to assess an individuals desire to give, as also used in Gneezy et al
(2012).
Controls
We included several control variables to ensure that main effects were not the result of
standard demographic variables such as age, gender, income and past experience
disposing of computers (prior disposal).

Analysis
Given the focus of our research on consumer behavior, we sought a sample of individual
consumers across representative demographics (location, gender, profession, age,
income). The use of consumers in consumer behavior studies selected in this way is
routinely employed in marketing studies. Other studies addressing similar themes of
product attachment and disposal used consumer samples with an n of 283 (Lastovicka
and Sirianni, 2011), 390 (White et al, 2011) and 240 (Haws et al, 2012).

We used a hierarchical linear regression method with moderators as recommended by

Baron and Kenny (1986) and Aguinis et al (2005). Significance was assessed using: a.
significance of R2; as well as b. overall power of the moderation effect using f2 (after
Peng and Lai, 2012; McLelland and Judd, 1983).

Page 8 of 14
RESULTS
Our initial analysis of the influence of the study control variables (age, gender, income
and prior disposal), indicated a positive, significant relationship between age and
attachment (**p<0.01), and gender and attachment (*p<0.05). A positive, significant
relationship was also found between age and charitable disposal options (**p<0.01) and a
very small effect between gender and charitable disposal options (p<0.10). None of the
control variables had an effect on material disposal options. When the disposal decision
was delayed (timing effect), prior disposal experience indicated a significant, positive
relationship with charitable disposal options (***p<0.001), and age had a significant,
positive relationship with material disposal options (**p<0.01).

Our first hypothesis, H1, was that attachment would be negatively related to all methods
of disposal. The analysis indicated a negative relationship between possession attachment
and both charitable disposal options and material disposal options. This relationship
however was only significant between attachment and material disposal options
(***p<0.001). High levels of possession attachment caused consumers to express a
significant, negative response for material disposal options only. Our second hypothesis,
H2, was that a desire to give would be positively related to all methods of disposal. The
analysis indicated a positive relationship between a desire to give and both types of
disposal option, however the relationship was only significant for charitable disposal
options (***p<0.001). A high desire to give caused consumers to express a significant,
positive response for charitable disposal options only. Our third hypothesis, was that the
interaction effect of attachment x a desire to give would decrease the negative effect of
attachment on disposal. The analysis did indicate an interaction effect whereby
consumers became less positive about charitable disposal options (beta change from +ve
to -ve, and a significant f2 of **p<0.01) and more positive about material disposal options
(beta change from ve to +ve and a significant f2 of **p<0.01).

Finally, our last two hypotheses, H4 and H5, proposed that the timing of disposal
(delaying the decision), would invert the relationships described at H1 and H2. In other
words, delaying the disposal decision would reduce the negative effect of attachment but
would also reduce the positive effect of a desire to give. The analysis indicated that, as
the timing of the decision was delayed further into the future, even consumers highly
attached to their possessions were positive about all disposal options (+ve beta with
**p<0.01 for both charitable and material disposal options). Consumers with a high
desire to give however became more negative about both disposal options as the decision
was delayed further into the future (-ve beta with **p<0.01 for both charitable and
material disposal options).

DISCUSSION
Our analysis confirmed the significant influence of possession-based attachment on
consumer disposal choices. In particular, higher levels of attachment cause consumers to
become increasingly reluctant to part with their possessions especially for material
disposal options (manufacturer, recycler, kerb-side, home-based collection).

Page 9 of 14
We also confirmed that high levels of giving behaviors lead consumers to willingly
dispose of their possessions through charitable options (family, friend, charity). The non-
significant relationship between desire to give and material disposal options seems
plausible given that donation is predicated on an expectation of helping those in need,
rather than more commercial interests (Grant, 2008; Lee and Shrum, 2012).

The interaction between attachment and desire to give, produced a consumer disposal
strategy that appeared to resolve in some way, a consumers underlying concern for their
possession. Where the consumers in our study were faced with a complete mental loss
(high attachment, low desire to give), they selected no option for disposal. When faced
with a less significant mental loss, through possession disposal but with an increasing
desire to give, they chose concrete disposal options (material disposal options, table 5). In
other words, I am more comfortable with disposal than before, however I need to know
where it will end up.

Based on our analysis, we identified three main consumer disposal profiles:

1. No disposal or donation (high attachment, low desire to give)
2. Predominantly donation (low attachment, high desire to give): Give possession a
Second Life no concern for possession security
3. Predominantly disposal (high attachment, high desire to give): Give possession to
Safe Hands concern for possession security

The influence of timing

In addition to the main effects described above, we also assessed to influence of a
decision delay (timing of disposal) on H1 and H2 (which then became H4 and H5). Our
analysis confirmed that consumers felt more comfortable with the disposal decision
where they were able to delay this decision to the distant future (greater than 6 months).

CONCLUSIONS
We explored the role of consumer behavior in the used good disposal decision. The why
and how of used goods disposal by consumers, particularly durable products, should be
an area of significant interest to operations management scholars. Both remanufacturing
and recycling systems depend significantly on steady volumes of material supply entering
the reverse value chain. The role of the consumer behavior in material supply has
received very little attention. We found that the relationship possession-based attachment
significantly limits the likelihood of consumer used computer disposal. High levels of
attachment were associated with highly negative responses to all possible disposal
choices. We also established that both interventions reduced this negative response and
increased likelihood of disposal to: a. charitable outlets where only desire to give was
high; non-charitable outlets where both attachment and desire to give were high; and all
outlets where consumers could postpone the decision for more than 6 months.

In terms of contribution, we developed and tested a conceptual model explaining the

critical relationship between consumer attachment to possessions and disposal choice.
Almost no prior studies in operations management have addressed the role of consumer
behavior in the used good disposal decision. In addition, we empirically tested a

Page 10 of 14
relationship that has previously only been described in qualitative work. Finally, we
described and tested the role of two psychological interventions for consumers that assist
with their disposal decision and increase disposal choices overall. This extends existing
theory on consumer disposition strategies and provides potential disposal interventions
for use by governments, retailers, recyclers and manufacturers.

REFERENCES
Babbitt, C. W., Williams, E., & Kahhat, R. 2011. Institutional Disposition and
Management of End-of-Life Electronics. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(12):
5366-5372.
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. 2005. Effect size and power in
assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1): 94-107.
Ahuvia, A. C. 2005. Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers' identity
narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1): 171-184.
Aquino, K. & Reed, A. 2002. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6): 1423-1440.
Atasu, A. & Van Wassenhove, L. N. 2012. An Operations Perspective on Product Take-
Back Legislation for E-Waste: Theory, Practice, and Research Needs. Production and
Operations Management, 21(3): 407-422.
Atasu, A., Guide, V. D. R., Jr., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. 2008. Product reuse economics
in closed-loop supply chain research. Production and Operations Management, 17(5):
483-496.
Atasu, A., Ozdemir, O., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. 2013. Stakeholder Perspectives on E-
Waste Take-Back Legislation. Production and Operations Management, 22(2): 382-396.
Ballantine, P. W. & Creery, S. 2010. The consumption and disposition behaviour of
voluntary simplifiers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(1): 45-56.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator mediator variable distinction in social
psychological-research - conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.
Belk, R. W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2): 139-168.
Bolton, L. E. & Alba, J. W. 2012. When less is more: Consumer aversion to unused
utility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3): 369-383.
Brough, A. R. & Isaac, M. S. 2012. Finding a Home for Products We Love: How Buyer
Usage Intent Affects the Pricing of Used Goods. Journal of Marketing, 76(4): 78-91.
Bruner, G. C., II & Kumar, A. 2007. Gadget lovers. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 35(3): 329-339.
Cherrier, H., Rahman, K. 2010. Relocating Profane Consumption into Sacredness:
Consumer Redemption and Resurrection through Practices of Disposal, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol Xxxvii, Vol. 37: 700-701.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. 1987.
Empathy-based helping - is it selflessly or selfishly motivated. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(4): 749-758.
Clottey, T., Benton, W. C., & Srivastava, R. 2012. Forecasting Product Returns for
Remanufacturing Operations. Decision Sciences, 43(4): 589-614.

Page 11 of 14
Curasi, C. F., Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. 2004. How individuals' cherished possessions
become families' inalienable wealth. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3): 609-622.
Dommer, S. L. & Swaminathan, V. 2013. Explaining the Endowment Effect through
Ownership: The Role of Identity, Gender, and Self-Threat. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(5): 1034-1050.
Ein-Gar, D. & Levontin, L. 2013. Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable
organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
23(2): 197-211.
Ekerdt, D. J., Luborsky, M., & Lysack, C. 2012. Safe passage of goods and self during
residential relocation in later life. Ageing & Society, 32: 833-850.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. 2012. Paying to Be
Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior. Management Science, 58(1): 179-187.
Goo, Q., Liang, L., Huang, Z., & Xu, C. 2008. A joint inventory model for an open-loop
reverse supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 116(1): 28-42.
Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving commitment: employee support
programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal,
51(5): 898-918.
Gregory, J. R. & Kirchain, R. E. 2008. A framework for evaluating the economic
performance of recycling systems: A case study of worth American electronics recycling
systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(18): 6800-6808.
Guide, V. D. R., Jr. & Li, J. 2010. The Potential for Cannibalization of New Products
Sales by Remanufactured Products*. Decision Sciences, 41(3): 547-572.
Haws, K. L., Naylor, R. W., Coulter, R. A., & Bearden, W. O. 2012. Keeping it all
without being buried alive: Understanding product retention tendency. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22(2): 224-236.
Jacobs, B. W. & Subramanian, R. 2012. Sharing Responsibility for Product Recovery
Across the Supply Chain. Production and Operations Management, 21(1): 85-100.
Jacoby, J., Berning, C. K., & Dietvorst, T. F. 1977. What about disposition. Journal of
Marketing, 41(2): 22-28.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. 1990. Experimental tests of the
endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6): 1325-
1348.
Kang, H. Y. & Schoenung, J. M. 2006. Economic analysis of electronic waste recycling:
Modeling the cost and revenue of a materials recovery facility in California.
Environmental Science & Technology, 40(5): 1672-1680.
Knutsson, M., Martinsson, P., & Wollbrant, C. 2013. Do people avoid opportunities to
donate? A natural field experiment on recycling and charitable giving. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 93: 71-77.
Lastovicka, J. L. & Fernandez, K. V. 2005. Three paths to disposition: The movement of
meaningful possessions to strangers. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4): 813-823.
Lastovicka, J. L. & Sirianni, N. J. 2011. Truly, Madly, Deeply: Consumers in the Throes
of Material Possession Love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2): 323-342.
Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. 1999. Lifestyle of
the tight and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1): 85-
98.

Page 12 of 14
Lee, J. & Shrum, L. J. 2012. Conspicuous Consumption versus Charitable Behavior in
Response to Social Exclusion: A Differential Needs Explanation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(3): 530-544.
Lord, K. (1994) Motivating recycling behavior: a quasi-experimental investigation of
message and source strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 341-58.
McClelland, G. H. & Judd, C. M. 1993. Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions
and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2): 376-390.
Okada, E. M. 2001. Trade-ins, mental accounting, and product replacement decisions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4): 433-446.
Ovchinnikov, A. (2011). Revenue and cost management for remanufactured products.
Production and Operations Management, 20(6), 824840.
Peng, D. X. & Lai, F. 2012. Using partial least squares in operations management
research: A practical guideline and summary of past research. Journal of Operations
Management, 30(6): 467-480.
Phillips, B. J. & Sego, T. 2011. The role of identity in disposal: Lessons from mothers'
disposal of children's possessions. Marketing Theory, 11(4): 435-454.
Plambeck, E. & Wang, Q. 2009. Effects of E-Waste Regulation on New Product
Introduction. Management Science, 55(3): 333-347.
Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Curasi, C. F. 2000. Older consumers' disposition of special
possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2): 179-201.
Rogers and Bazerman (2000) Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection
of 'should' choices, Organizational behavior and human decision processes,
Vol.106(1),p.1-20.
Roster, C. A. 2001. Letting go: The process and meaning of dispossession in the lives of
consumers. In M. C. Gilly & J. MeyersLevy (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol Xxviii, Vol. 28: 425-430.
Saphores, J.-D. M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O. A., & Shapiro, A. A. 2009. How much e-
waste is there in US basements and attics? Results from a national survey. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90(11): 3322-3331.
Saphores, J.-D. M., Ogunseitan, O. A., & Shapiro, A. A. 2012. Willingness to engage in a
pro-environmental behavior: An analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey
of U.S. households. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 60: 49-63.
Savaskan, R. C. & Van Wassenhove, L. N. 2006. Reverse channel design: The case of
competing retailers. Management Science, 52(1): 1-14.
Schultz, P. W. & Oskamp, S. 1996. Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior
relationship: General environmental concern and recycling. Social Psychology Quarterly,
59(4): 375-383.
Sego, T. 2010. Mothers' experiences related to the disposal of children's clothing and
gear: keeping Mister Clatters but tossing broken Barbie. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
9(1): 57-68.
Shih, C. F. & Venkatesh, A. 2004. Beyond adoption: Development and application of a
use-diffusion model. Journal of Marketing, 68(1): 59-72.
Sousa, L., Silva, A. R., Santos, L., & Patrao, M. 2010. The family inheritance process:
motivations and patterns of interaction. European Journal of Ageing, 7(1): 5-15.

Page 13 of 14
Toktay, B. (2004). Forecasting product returns. In V. D. Guide, Jr., & L. N. van
Wassenhove (Eds.), Business aspects of closed-loop supply chains. Pitts-burgh: Carnegie
Mellon University Press, 203209.
Trope and Liberman (2000) Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in
preference, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, pp. 876889.
Webster, S. & Mitra, S. 2007. Competitive strategy in remanufacturing and the impact of
take-back laws. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6): 1123-1140.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. 2011. It's the Mind-Set That Matters: The
Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and
Conservation Behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3): 472-485.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A., Buckley, M.R. (1989), Lack of method variance in self-
reported affect and perceptions of work: reality or artifact?, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 462468.
White, K and Peloza, J (2009) Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: their
effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124.

FIGURE 1. Conceptual model

Charitable
Disposal
Attachment to
Possessions

Non-charitable
Disposal

Moderators
1. Desire to Give
2. Timing of Disposal

Page 14 of 14