The Psychological Ownership Affordances Framework
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. From a Framework towards a Tool
2.2. Work Session with TSH
2.3. Design Students at Work
2.4. Interviews and Data Analysis
3.1. Design Interventions
3.1.1. Intervention 1: Intimate Knowledge
3.1.2. Intervention 2: Self-Investment
3.2. Process Efficiency
3.3. Process Quality
3.4. Design Quality
4.1. Top-Down Insights
4.2. Bottom-Up Insights
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Protocol Interview Design Students
- Did you use the card set?
- Yes: continue with question 2
- No: continue with question 9
- Can you name specific cards?
- Can you name a specific moment in the design process? (Understand/Create/Deliver)
- Can you name specific design choices?
- Can you name the consequences of using the model/cards?
- social consequences or consequences for behavioral change?
- Have the cards helped you work more effectively?
- How have the cards helped you work more effectively? Can you cite an example?
- Could you have come up with a suitable design solution faster with or without a card set?
- For what reasons did you not use the cards?
- What needs to happen that you are going to use the cards?
Appendix B. Protocol Interview Bike Repairer TSH
- How did students (long-stayers) use the bicycles?
- How did you see this behaviour?
- Careful handling: think of checking for defects, repairing (tyre pressure, checking lights)
- Careless handling: cycling on pavements, do not climb the stairs over the tire gutter, otherwise.
- Did you experience ownership of the bicycles with students?
- Do you feel that users use the bicycles as they use their own bicycles?
- How did you see this back?
- Think, for example, of repairing bicycles or own baskets, stickers or lights on the bicycles, users who claim bicycles
- Has anything been done to encourage users to handle bicycles with care?
Explanation of the interventions (without mechanisms of Psychological Ownership)
- Repair kit in garage, wall warnings, fines
- Do you see these interventions again and, if so, where and how? (not the behaviour of users, but the interventions themselves)Questions about Bike repairer’s image after the interventions (period after March 2020)
- How do students (long-stayers) use their bicycles now?
- How do you see this?
- Do you experience more ownership of the bicycles among students after the interventions?
- When users reserve a bike…
- When users take a bike…
- If users use a bicycle…
- When users return the bike…
- If there are any defects on the bicycle…
- When a bike is under repair…
- Do the interventions help you in your work?
- Do you think your role in the circularity of this service is important?
- What do you think could be alternative explanations for changes in user behaviour?
Appendix C. Protocol Interview Bike End-Users TSH
Appendix D. Design Focus and Rationale by Student Group
|Design Focus||Rationale (Written Rapport)||Rationale (Oral)|
|Student Group 1|
HU Studio Gif
|Bicycles per corridor with color, where one person is responsible per corridor. Adapting the bike to customer needs: bag rack and possibility to ‘pimp’.||Affordances P.O. not mentioned in reporting. However, ‘togetherness’ and ‘social control’ to increase a sense of responsibility over shared items.||Affordances P.O. not mentioned.|
|Student Group 2|
Hu happy design club
|Bike check in app (check before use) and ‘Holy Bike’.||Affordances P.O. not mentioned in reporting.||From checklist to visualization of the problem: simplifying, explaining and making reporting possible (Simplification, Repository). “In addition, disclosure really applies to the Holy Bike.”|
|Student Group 3|
HU Four minus one
|Redesign bicycle shed with art and color + instagram.||Affordances P.O. not mentioned in reporting. Broken Window Theory as a rationale for redesign.||‘spatial’ & ‘preference recall’. No further research has been done on this.|
|Student Group 4|
|Take Care; Plasters and bike hospital, physical keys||Repair & Maintenance and Simplification||Repair & Maintenance and Simplification|
|Student Group 5|
|Bike Postive: color, numbers, statistics, quotes, infirmary||Affordances P.O. not mentioned in reporting. Tali Sharot’s ‘Sense of Control’ theory and social proof as a rationale.||Affordances P.O. not mentioned.|
|Student Group 6|
|Bike Tour and Cycling course + cycling per course and points system.||Affordances P.O. not mentioned in reporting. However, investing is mentioned as a rationale for participating in the bike course.||Looked at Emblems. So that’s the self-investment route. And simplification was very important and enabling for us, so I think more people have worked towards that intimate knowledge route than self investment too.|
|Student Group 7|
|Avatar in app on bike||Self-investment route: familiar bike settings, having a depiction of themselves on the bike (avatar), having a personalized avatar through creation.||Self-investment and creation, that was kind of the route and before that it went like this: We want self investment, that includes creation and emblems and later specifically creation.|
|Student Group 8|
|Different types of bicycles||We suggest that the Baxter model has a pyramid shaped hierarch relating to psychological ownership of shared services. In this hierarchy, identifying meaning in non-ownership stands on the basis. Without meaning in non-ownership over a shared service, it provides no added value over actually owning the product. In many shared ownership services, the value in non-ownership is immediately clear. For example, the service can be cheaper than owning the product, more sustainable, or more conveniently accessible at multiple places.||With protest, of course, we really started to focus on that self-investment route. So I think that was also an important step, especially looking back to the baxter model, that we really made the choice there: okay, we’re going to look at that route now, and focus specifically on that.|
|Student Group 9|
|Self-made stickers on bike for each use||Emblems, Configuration, Temporal and Preference Recall.||The emblems affordance and Contamination.|
|Student Group 10|
|Physical personalized element in frame||Personalisation||Transformation, creation en emblems. I find those specific affordances partly present in a certain way.|
- Demyttenaere, K.; Dewit, I.; Jacoby, A. The Influence of Ownership on the Sustainable Use of Product-service Systems-A Literature Review. Procedia CIRP 2016, 47, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tukker, A.; Tischner, U. Product-services as a research field: Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 1552–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardhi, F.; Eckhardt, G.M. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 881–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck, J.; Kirk, C.P.; Luangrath, A.W.; Shu, S.B. Caring for the Commons: Using Psychological Ownership to Enhance Stewardship Behavior for Public Goods. J. Mark. 2021, 85, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, J.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K. The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2003, 7, 84–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, J.L.; Peck, J. The history of psychological ownership and its emergence in consumer psychology. In Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pino, G.; Nieto-García, M.; Zhang, C.X. “My place is your place”-Understanding how psychological ownership influences peer-to-peer service experiences. Psychol. Mark. 2022, 39, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makatsoris, H.; Moreno, M.; Sheldrick, L.; Dewberry, E.; Sinclair, M. Business as Unusual: Designing Products with Consumers in the Loop; Recode Network: Bedfordshire, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamleitner, B.; Mitchell, V.-W. Can Consumers Experience Ownership for Their Personal Data? From Issues of Scope and Invisibility to Agents Handling Our Digital Blueprints. In Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior; Peck, J., Shu, S.B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 91–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldermann, S.K.; Hiebl, M.R.W. Psychological ownership and stewardship behavior: The moderating role of agency culture. Scand. J. Manag. 2022, 38, 101209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleroux, A.; Peck, J.; Friedman, O. Young children infer psychological ownership from stewardship. Dev. Psychol. 2002, 58, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter, W.; Aurisicchio, M. Ownership by design. In Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tromp, N.; Hekkert, P. Assessing methods for effect-driven design: Evaluation of a social design method. Design Studies 2016, 43, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daalhuizen, J. Method Usage in Design. Available online: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:4ac01165-c6b5-4057-a2fe-3418907f251e?collection=research (accessed on 3 May 2022).
- Van Aken, J.; Andriessen, D. Ontwerpgericht wetenschappelijk onderzoek. In Handboek Ontwerpgericht Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; Boom: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hevner, A. A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 2007, 19, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
- Dalsgaard, P.; Dindler, C. Between theory and practice: Bridging concepts in HCI research. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems–Proceedings, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April–1 May 2014; pp. 1635–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, J.; Van Dijk, J.; Drossaert, C. When theory meets users in co-design: Four strategies towards synergy between bottom-up and top-down input. DRS2020 Synerg. 2020, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, L.H.; Duflou, J.; Herrmann, C.; Sakao, T.; Shimomura, Y.; De Bock, Y.; Srivastava, J. Design for reduced resource consumption during the use phase of products. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 66, 635–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, H.S.; Remmen, A. A framework for sustainable value propositions in product-service systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuijer, L. Implications of Social Practice Theory for Sustainable Design. Implications of Social Practice Theory for Sustainable Design. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Shove, E.; Pantzar, M.; Watson, M. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Warde, A. Consumption and Theories of Practice. J. Consum. Cult. 2005, 5, 131–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, M.; Lazarevic, D.; Gullström, C. Assessing the environmental potential of collaborative consumption: Peer-to-peer product sharing in Hammarby Sjöstad, Sweden. Sustainability 2019, 11, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Khan, M.A.; Mittal, S.; West, S.; Wuest, T. Review on upgradability–A product lifetime extension strategy in the context of product service systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 1154–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamleitner, B.; Rabinovich, A. Association for Consumer Research: Mine Versus Ours: Does It Matter? Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Baxter, W.; Aurisicchio, M.; Childs, P. A psychological ownership approach to designing object attachment. J. Eng. Des. 2015, 26, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hassenzahl, M. Experience Design: Technology for All the Right Reasons. Synth. Lect. Hum.-Cent. Inform. 2010, 3, 1–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, D.A. Affordance, conventions, and design. In Security and Privacy: Volume III; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, J. The Theory of Affordances; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, D. The Design of Everyday Things; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baxter, W.; Yang, X.; Aurisicchio, M.; Childs, P.R. Exploring a human-centred design of possessions. In Proceedings of the NordDesign 2016, Trondheim, Norway, 10–12 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Koskinen, I.; Zimmerman, J.; Binder, T.; Redstrom, J.; Wensveen, S. Design Research through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2013, 56, 262–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeije, H.; Bleijenbergh, I. Analyseren in Kwalitatief Onderzoek, 3rd ed.; Boom: Meppel, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- James Wilson, B.Q.; Kelling, G.L. Broken Windows. Atlantic Monthly 1982, 249, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Ackermann, L.; Mugge, R.; Schoormans, J. Consumers’ perspective on product care: An exploratory study of motivators, ability factors, and triggers. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).