No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Grounded procedures of connection are not created equal
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 February 2021
Abstract
Lee and Schwarz propose that grounded procedures can also be related to connection rather than separation. Drawing on consumer behavior research, we point to different grounded procedures of connection – in terms of the motor actions involved, their salient properties, and their motivational conditions – and discuss how procedures of separation may be affected by the procedures of connection that precede them.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Enclothed cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 918–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers’ connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, J., Szabo, M., & Rodney, A. (2011). Good food, good people: Understanding the cultural repertoire of ethical eating. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(3), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540511417996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, U., Schreier, M., & Janiszewski, C. (2017). The self-expressive customization of a product can improve performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(5), 816–831. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1086/658338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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(4), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nägele, N., von Walter, B., Scharfenberger, P., & Wentzel, D. (2020) “Touching” services: Tangible objects create an emotional connection to services even before their first use. Business Research, 13(2), 741–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00114-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, J., Barger, V. A., & Webb, A. (2013). In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.35.18612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1086/598614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiecek, A., Wentzel, D., & Erkin, A. (2020). Just print it! The effects of self-printing a product on consumers’ product evaluations and perceived ownership. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(4), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00700-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Grounded procedures: A proximate mechanism for the psychology of cleansing and other physical actions
Related commentaries (27)
A not-so proximate account of cleansing behavior
Bio-culturally grounded: why separation and connection may not be the same around the world
Body ownership as a proxy for individual and social separation and connection
Cleansing and separating: From modern agriculture and genocide to post-separation era
Cleansing and separation procedures reflect resource concerns
Considerations of the proximate mechanisms and ultimate functions of disgust will improve our understanding of cleansing effects
Cultural mindsets shape what grounded procedures mean: Cleansing can separate or connect and separating can feel good or not so good
Culture, ecology, and grounded procedures
Developmental antecedents of cleansing effects: Evidence against domain-generality
From washing hands to washing consciences and polishing reputations
Going beyond elementary mechanisms: the strategic interplay between grounded procedures
Grounded procedures of connection are not created equal
Grounded procedures of separation in clinical psychology: what's to be expected?
Grounded separation: can the sensorimotor be grounded in the symbolic?
Grounding together: Shared reality and cleansing practices
Incomplete grounding: the theory of symbolic separation is contradicted by pervasive stability in attitudes and behavior
It's a matter of (executive) load: Separation as a load-dependent resetting procedure
Leveraging individual differences to understand grounded procedures
Proper understanding of grounded procedures of separation needs a dual inheritance approach
Psychology of cleansing through the prism of intersecting object histories
Separation/connection procedures: From cleansing behavior to numerical cognition
Specifying separation: avoidance, abstraction, openness to new experiences
The impact of grounded procedures can vary as a function of perceived thought validity, meaning, and timing
The lack of robust evidence for cleansing effects
The role of goal-generalization processes in the effects of grounded procedures
The role of meta-analysis and preregistration in assessing the evidence for cleansing effects
The role of mortality concerns in separation and connection effects: comment on Lee and Schwarz
Author response
Grounded procedures in mind and society