TÉCNICAS DE EXPERIMENTACIÓN ANIMAL

The second half of the Disposition Taxonomy (Jacoby, 1977) deals with the notion of removing the possession permanently via one of four routes: throw it away, give it away/donate it, sell it, or trade it.

2.7.5.1 Throwing it away

In many developed countries, people are often typified by what is termed a throw-away society (Packard, 1963), where it is generally deemed more efficient to buy a new product than to attempt to repair an older one. In addition, many consumers dispose of products before they break or cease to function correctly (Park, 2010). Burke et al. (1979) suggest that major

appliances such as kitchen white goods can be separated into two disposal categories: those for which mechanical or performance obsolescence influences the disposal decision, such as a washing machine that no longer works and thus needs to be replaced; and those for which fashion or

technological obsolescence influences disposal decisions, such as the

changing styles, sizes and features of household items such as fridges, which may still work but are considered dated. Antonides (1991) investigated

household white goods in the Netherlands and presents a model for scrapping behaviour, identifying that 99% of scrapping behaviour in this category was for

97 defects, which supports previous research by Burke et al. (1979), Jacoby et al. (1977) and Hanson (1980). Harrell and McConocha (1992) built on this work to present rationales for disposal, stating that 45% of consumers consider themselves ‘planner disposers’ and on average 8% of the sample would throw away products (Harrell and McConocha, 1992). In terms of the working value of the good being considered for disposal, Cooper (2004) states that one-third of all appliances are still in working order when discarded.

Coulter and Ligas (2003) have compared the aforementioned personality profile of disposers namely ‘packrats’, now by contrast we look at ‘purgers’.

Purgers are ‘efficient, i.e., they are practical in the sense that they typically maintain items with an immediate use’ (p42). A possession that no longer serves a current purpose is considered waste or clutter. As such, purgers self-identify as clean, uncluttered and well-organised consumers who do not perceive symbolic meaning in old products. In addition, purgers like to stay ahead of technology and do not seek alternative innovative reuses for old things (Coulter and Ligas, 2003). Owning old possessions does not

complement a purger’s self-identity and thus old items should disposed of (Kleine et at. 1995).

In relation to the consideration of permanent disposal methods, Walker (2006) found two new effects: that preferences for disposal methods differ across goods; and, more interestingly that this pattern varies systematically by the specialness of the good (Walker, 2006). This suggests that there is a match between the chosen method and the item being considered for disposal. This research also concluded that easy methods are often preferred for less special goods, concurring with earlier research (Kleine, Kleine and Allen, 1995, Coulter and Ligas, 2003) that found that the less special an item is and the lower its emotional or practical value, the more likely it will be that the item is thrown away.

2.7.5.2 Give away/donate

98 Schwarts (1970) observed that giving rates are positively related to a

donator’s income and not the price of the item being exchanged. Jacoby et al.

(1977) investigated the psychological characteristics of the decision-maker, factors intrinsic to the product and situational factors extrinsic to the product when producing the aforementioned disposition taxonomy (Jacoby et al., 1977). Product factors such as condition, age, size and style, and the situational factors of storage space, fashion, urgency and tax avoidance suggest possible motives for giving away old products. Harrell and

McConocha (1992), building on Jacoby et al.’s (1977) work, found that 18% of their sample donated, which was positively associated with older age, larger households and not knowing the next user; while 24% passed items along to known recipients, indicating a strong association to donating. In this instance, such activity can be for the payment of a debt or building of credit with the recipient. A further 13% of the sample donated for tax deduction purposes (Harrell and McConocha,1992). Walker (2006) investigated the consideration of ‘special goods’, and in terms of donation, ‘control’ is important in the

selection of a disposal method for a special good. For example, choosing a method such as passing an item along in the family allows the disposer to have a far stronger degree of control and/or even further contact with the good and future owner. Ha-Brookeshire and Hodges (2009) examined clothing disposal and found that, when donation was chosen over throwing clothing away, this was motivated by a utilitarian need to remove unwanted items and thus create closet space as well as a hedonic need to reduce the guilt of unethical consumption behaviour that throwing away would bring. The clothing disposal habits of young consumers (18–24 year olds) were

investigated by Lee et al. (2013), who found that fashion, physical condition and social responsibility were major factors influencing their fashion

disposition choices. Guillard and Del Bucchia (2012) studied the possible tensions surrounding the donation of unwanted items. They claim that free recycling websites proved to be helpful for alleviating gift economy tensions as when the object is given away online there is less concern over a possible refusal of the gift as the recipient has already indicated they would like to own the item.

99 2.7.5.3 Resale

Harrell and McConocha (1992) identified that 15% of ‘planner disposers’ sell the items they no longer want and this behaviour is positively associated with liking economic return for investment (Lee et al., 2013), coming out ahead, removing annoyances, being seen as generous, earning the right to be on the receiving end, and repaying a debt (Harrell and McConocha, 1992, Lee et al., 2013). Shim (1995) claim that resale behaviour is driven more by monetary or economic reasons rather than environmental reasons. Gregson and Crewe (2003) suggest that, when unwanted goods are resold, the value of an item is derived from situational knowledge of the good’s worth, and elements such as condition, fashion and commonality combine to set the perceived value

(Gregson and Crewe, 2003, Gregson, Metcalf and Crewe, 2007). The meaning and value of secondhand goods is also discussed by Parsons

(2006), who observed that when a third party (dealer) is used, they commonly perform rituals to clean, restore and present the item for resale. Through such tasks, both investment and divestment take place as items are presented like new and removed of any sentimental wear-and-tear markings (Parsons, 2006). Irwin (1994) suggests that people can be uncomfortable about pricing items that hold great meaning for them. Goods that are considered cherished items by their owners can also be considered ‘priceless’, as to assign a price to such an item would be perceived as wrong as the item is special and not supposed to have a monetary value.

Chu and Liao (2007) investigated online clothing resale in Taiwan and China and found that some consumers make initial purchases with resale intentions in mind. As such, they may hold an expectation about the monetary value of the resale result, which could be a required resale price or the time lag needed to complete the sale. If the resale result falls below expectations, consumers may not repurchase any brands with undesirable resale performance and may continue to hold negative perceptions of low resale value brands. The movement of a possession to strangers either via selling online or offline such as in a garage sale has been investigated by Lastovika

100 and Fernandes (2005). They suggest that the process can take place via three routes – two that represent swapping the possession from ‘me’ to ‘not me’, and one where the seller and new owner understand that they have a shared self value of ownership of the item. Online disposal has also been empirically tested by Denegri-Knott and Molesworth (2009), who researched heavy eBay users in the UK. They concluded that disposal via eBay involves an investment of ‘work’ in order to extend the economic value of the goods.

Such actions often replace the normal effort of ownership in order to achieve a commodity status and associated economic value. As such, consumers who are eBay ‘professionalisers’ often ‘wear their goods lightly, always with an eye on what they can sell them for, and therefore what they can buy next’

(Denegri-Knott and Molesworth, 2009, p314). Cho and Koo (2012)

investigated the high-tech markets and confirmed earlier research findings (Chu and Liao, 2007) that there is now a new type of early adopter who buys products and resells them quickly in online and offline secondary markets.

Such a phenomenon is driven by high-tech product short product lifecycles and inexpensive transaction costs via the internet. Cho and Koo (2012) conclude by stating that, given the speed of such transactions, one can no longer only consider primary purchase consumers in diffusion of innovation modelling, as secondary market consumers acquire their goods in a short time lag from launch and this also has a word-of-mouth influence on the remaining non-adopter population (Cho and Koo, 2012).