Herbazal arbustivo <33 33 66 33

According to Belk (1989), “we can measure the degree to which various things are perceived to be a part of a person’s self” (p. 130). Belk cites a study conducted by Prelinger (1959) as an “adequate” method used to measure self extension. Although not explicitly stated, Prelinger used Q sampling and Q sorting to measure the levels of self extension perceived in possessions. Prelinger (1959); Dixon and Street (1975); Belk (1989); Belk and Austin (1989), and Sivadas and Machleit (1994) all conducted studies that measured the self extension of possessions.

Prelinger (1959) asked 100 college students to make a list of terms that

represented ideas or concepts that they believed to be “a part of their own selves.” From these lists, Prelinger developed a list of 160 items which he put on cards and then divided the cards into eight categories: psychological or itraorganismic processes (i.e., the

conscience), body parts, possessions within the close physical environment, possessions from the distant physical environment, personal identifying characteristics and attributes, possessions and productions, other people, and abstract ideas (in Q method, this process is known as developing a Q sample). He then asked 60 participants to sort the items into piles labeled “part of my Self” and “not part of my Self” (in Q method, this process is known as Q-sorting). The card sorting activity was then repeated, and participants were asked to sort the two piles into two more piles of whether they felt “sure” or “not so sure” about the cards in the ‘part of Self’ and ‘not part of Self’ piles. The piles were then labeled 0-3 with cards that scored a 0 or 1 (cards that were not part of my self) and cards scoring a 2 or 3 (cards that were considered to be part of my self). Prelinger was able to determine a rank ordering among the items in his eight categories. The findings suggest

that individuals conceived of self regions and each item that was sorted existed in a self region emanating from the body. The items closer to the body were more closely aligned with one’s self concept and the items further away were not as aligned with an

individual’s self concept.

Dixon and Street (1975), measured self extension in their exploration of the “direction and extent of age-related differences in self-definition” (p. 157). Dixon and Street predicted that self-extension to one’s body, psychological processes, identifying characteristics and possessions would increase from childhood to adolescence. The researchers recruited ten boys and ten girls at ages 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16. The 120 participants sorted “a list of items similar to Prelinger’s but reduced to 42 in order to avoid loss of interest and adapted to the vocabulary of a 6 year old” (p. 158). Instead of being directed to sort the cards into possession that represent “self” and “not self,” the terms “you” and “not you” were used. The two piles were then sorted into four piles, similar to the Prelinger method. The researchers found that girls identified more items as self at every age and as boys aged, they considered more items as self and that the

number of participants who thought an item was part of his or her self followed a rank order similar to the rank order discovered by Prelinger.

Belk conducted a similar study in 1989, in order to explore “how central various entities are to our sense of self and to examine certain consequences of such identification with these things” (p. 152) and to “examine the relative importance of community,

market, and personal possessions to self identity” (p. 153). Market objects are

possessions that could be individually owned or shared with others (automobile models, shampoo brands, etc.), personal possessions includes body parts and our relationships

with other people, and community possessions include cities, public monuments and public officials. Belk used a convenience sample of 248 adults ranging in age from 19- 78, with a mean age of 31.5. The participants reviewed a list of types of people, places and things and “listed their favorites” (of items on the list) “or the ones that applied to them” (p. 156). The list of favorite things was combined with a list of shared things and things for which no choice existed. The participants then sorted the 96 items into two piles: “self” and “not self.” The two piles were divided into two more piles “a lot of not- self” and “a lot of self.” The sorting was an exact replication of the sorting instructions that Prelinger supplied to participants. Belk then collected demographic information as well as organ donation information and information about product care and use that was reported in Belk & Austin (1986).

Belk (1989) observed that market possessions and personal possessions were more important to individuals than community possessions. Like Dixon and Street (1975), Belk observed a gender difference in “ratings of self relevance”: women rated decorative possessions highly, while men rated athletic items as more central to self (p. 156). Belk also found that older participants were more likely than younger participants to cathect body parts and individual possessions, whereas younger participants rated sensations and feelings as more central to extended self. Overall, Belk states that the differences associated with age and sex are “predictable” (p. 161). In addition, Belk found that people tended to take bettercare of items with a higher self extension rating. This was true of dwellings, body parts and automobiles.

Sivadas and Machleit (1994) aimed to explore whether self extension could be measured using a method that was “faster and easier” than Q method (p. 143). Sivadas

and Machleit developed a Likert scale to “assess the extent to which an individual has incorporated a particular possession into the extended self” (p. 143). Sivadas and Machleit began by exploring the difference between self extension and personal importance/relevance. Sivadas and Machleit hypothesized that:

• “Individuals are more likely to be attached to things that are a part of their extended self” (p. 144).

• “Individuals are more likely to take good care of things that are part of their extended self” (p. 144).

• “A gift [was] more likely to be part of an individual’s extended self when the gift- giver is part of that individual’s extended self” (p. 144).

During phase one, 113 participants responded to a 12 statement, seven point, Likert scale for incorporation/self extension and attachment, and made lists of their favorite

possessions. Factor analysis was conducted and the questions were reduced from 12 to seven. The remaining Likert statements were then adapted to a format of fill in the blank questions so that the researchers could measure self extension (seven statements) or attachment (three statements) for a specific possession, supplied by the participant.

For phase two, the researchers measured importance/personal relevance using a “seven-point semantic differential format” for each of the 137 participants’ car, favorite college sweatshirt/t-shirt, and “the last gift they had received” (p. 146). Factor analysis was conducted and one statement was dropped to better fit the model. Discriminant validity was then tested and confirmed. In addition, the hypothesis that individuals were more likely to be attached to possessions to which their self had extended was supported for car, favorite sweatshirt/tshirt, gift and gift giver. The hypothesis that individuals take good care of things that are part of their extended self was confirmed for all four items.

In addition to studies conducted by Prelinger (1959), Dixon and Street (1975) and Belk (1989), a study conducted by Belk and Austin (1989) in which propensity to donate organs was explored used the Q-sample and Q-sort technique from Q method to measure self extension. Interestingly, these studies did not use Q Factor analysis to analyze the data collected from the Q-sort. Prelinger (1989), Dixon and Street (1975), Belk (1989) and Belk and Austin (1986) assigned the “self” and “not self” (or in the case of Dixon and Street, “you” and “not you”) piles a score from 0-3 and then the mean for each item was calculated. Results were presented as a ranking of the possessions that received the highest mean score.