Possession Attachment and Disposal Presentation

POSSESSION ATTACHMENT AND DISPOSAL IN A NON-

CLINICAL POPULATIONWILSON RESEARCH PROJECT: BY LEANNE ARSENAULT

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON POSSESSION ATTACHMENT

Extension of the self (Belk, 1988)Autonomy v. Affiliation

4 TYPES OF POSSESSION ATTACHMENT (Kleine, S. Kleine III, R. & Allen, C. 1995) (Steketee, Frost & Kyrois, 2003)• SOURCE OF IDENTITY • MEMORIES• NEED FOR CONTROL• FEELING RESPONSIBLE

(Roster, 2015)AFFILIATION:• OBJECTS = RELATIONSHIPS• MEMORIES LOST, UNIMPORTANT

REALTIONSHIPS • ALL ITEMS HAVE A STORY • KEEP DECEASED ALIVE AUTONOMY:• NEED FOR FUTURE• INFORMATION WILL BE LOST conflicting motives (i.e. compulsive shopping)

POSSESSION ATTACHMENT PREDICTS CELLPHONE USE WHILE DRIVING

•NATIONAL SAMPLE, N=1006 (17-28)• 62% NOT COMFORTABLE NOT HAVING PHONE WITH THEM FOR AN

EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME • 56.6% FELT DETACHED FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS WITHOUT THEIR PHONE • 56% WOULD EXPERIENCE DISTRESS UPON REALIZING THEY LEFT

CELLPHONE AT HOME • 40.3% CHECK THEIR PHONE EVEN WHEN THEY DID NOT HEAR IT GO OFF •OVERALL: HIGH ATTACHMENT CORRELATED WITH HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR

(I.E. TEXTING AND DRIVING)

Weller and Shackleford (2013)

PRESENT STUDY•GOAL : TO EXPLORE THE DEGREE OF OBJECT ATTACHMENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO DISPOSAL PATTERNS IN A NON-CLINICAL SAMPLE.•PARTICIPANTS COMPLETED A ONE ON ONE INTERVIEW

N=20 (M. 7, F. 13)•INTERVIEW PROTOCOL CONTAINED 18 QUESTIONS (41

PAGES OF TRANSCRIPTIONS) •LINE BY LINE CODING WAS COMPLETED WITH TWO

CODERS•THEMATIC ANALYSIS USED TO COME UP FOR FINAL

CODES

Imagine that your house is on fire. Everyone is out of the

house and safe including any of your pets. You have time to grab two items from anywhere

in the house. What are they and why?

What did they

save?Other:• Journal • Clothing • Re-enacting

gear• Money • Nothing• Sentimental

item for a child (2)

Why those items?

15% 10

%15%

15%

20%

25%Misc:

• Journal • Re-enacting

gear• Favorite Cd

50%

15% 35

%

15%

25%

60%

50%

33.3%

16.6%

20%

60%20

%

66.6%

33.3%

15%

35%

50%

5%20%

15%

30%

30%

20%

15%

40%

25%

25% of participant

s mentioned

only disposing of clothing

itemsRedo graph typo only if not is

20%25%

5%

25%

25%

60%

25%

5%10%

Do”

50%

25%

16.6%8.4

%

45%

20%

15%

20%Other/Condition

1- only if I have duplicates2-unknown

40%15

%

10%10

%

10%

Note: these terms are relevant to

the individual and simple may mean something much different to one person than it

does to another

SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION?

•THE AVERAGE U.S. HOUSEHOLD CONTAINS 300,000 THINGS (MACVEAN, 2014)• IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OUR HOMES WE NEED TO HAVE A CONSTANT EQUAL FLOW IN AND OUT (IN: 45% ONCE A MONTH OR MORE) (OUT: 25% NEVER 40%

RARELY)• INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICS AS SYMBOLIZING CONNECTIONS CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS. (FIRE: 50%) (LEFT AT HOME: 50% ANXIOUS/STRESSED)

62% stressed if without for a period of time (Weller and Shackleford 2013)

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE AN OLD CELLPHONE SOMEWHERE IN YOUR HOME JUST INCASE ?

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU LEFT YOUR CELLPHONE AT HOME FOR AN ENTIRE DAY?

• “EVENTUALLY I DON’T THINK ABOUT IT BUT DEFINITELY YOU LIKE FIRST HAVE THE SEPARATION ANXIETY”• “I’D FEEL NAKED. IT’D BE A ROUGH ONE”• “I’D PROBABLY HAVE A PANIC ATTACK”• “PANICKED, I CAN’T GO TWO HOURS WITHOUT LOOKING AT MY

PHONE, THAT’S MY MAXIMUM AND THEN I GOT TO LOOK”• “CUT OFF FROM THE WORLD”• “IT’S LIKE A CONSTANT LITTLE INTERNET DEVICE THAT I CAN’T

TEAR MYSELF AWAY FROM”

OBJECTS ARE SENTIMENTAL

•50% OF PEOPLE WOULD KEEP THE SHIRT AND NEVER WEAR IT•OVER HALF WOULD SAVE A SENTIMENTAL ITEM OR PHOTOS IN A FIRE • (ROSTER, 2015) OBJECT = RELATIONSHIPS AND EVERY ITEM HAS A STORY

•OBJECT RESPONSIBILITY (CURASI, PRICE, ARNOULD, 2014)

•25% WEAR IT ONCE, 16.6% WEAR IN FRONT OF HER•ITEM YOU CAN’T GET RID OF 40% OF PARTICIPANTS RESPONDED THAT THEY COULD NOT GET

RID OF SENTIMENTAL ITEMS•

ATTACHMENT TREND • THERE IS A TREND OF ATTACHMENT • “I LIKE TO KEEP MY STUFF”• “I DON’T LIKE GETTING RID OF THINGS IF I CAN HELP IT”• FUTURE RESEARCH COULD FURTHER EXPLORE ATTACHMENT WITHIN

THE GENERAL POPULATION IN ORDER TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO AID IN DISPOSAL BEFORE A PERSON DEVELOPS HOARDING TENDENCIES • 6 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ARE SPENT ON HOARDING CASES

NEED FOR FUTURE •ROSTER (2015) HOARDERS HAVE DIFFICULTY GETTING RID OF ITEMS MAY NEED IN FUTURE •HOW FEEL DISPOSING : 25% REPORTED NEED FOR FUTURE• “I HAVE A REALLY LONG DEBATE WITH MYSELF, WHETHER I

SHOULD OR IF I’M GOING TO NEED IT IN THE FUTURE. BUT I KNOW I WON’T SO I STILL HOLD ON TO IT JUST IN CASE”• “IF IT’S OUTLIVED IT’S USEFULNESS I AM OKAY WITH GETTING

RID OF IT. BUT IF THERE’S LIKE A CHANCE THAT I COULD USE IT AGAIN OR THAT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL AGAIN AT SOME FUTURE DATE. I’LL PROBABLY KEEP IT”• INNER MONOLOGUE

CONTRADICTIONS•“I HAVE A LOT OF SHIRTS THAT I NEVER WEAR” •LATER EXPRESSED GIVING AWAY SHIRTS DOESN’T

BOTHER THEM •NEVER GETTING RID OF ITEMS•THEN ASKED ABOUT ITEM YOU NO LONGER USE,

“GOOD, I MEAN JUST THERE’S NOT POINT IN KEEPING IT IF I’M NOT USING IT SO WHY DON’T I JUST GIVE IT TO SOMEONE IN NEED”•COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

LIMITATIONS•N=20 WITH A LIMITED AGE GROUP (SATURATION)•MOST STUDENTS ARE JUST STARTING OUT AND STILL LIVE WITH PARENTS. MANY WILL LEAVE OBJECTS HOME AND FORGET ABOUT THEM SO THEY HAVEN’T HAD TIME TO EXPERIENCE SHOPPING AND DISPOSAL PRACTICES IN THEIR OWN SETTING •ONE PARTICIPANT DISPLAYED HOARDING TENDENCIES AND COMMENTED THAT THEY HAD OCD SO IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A NON-CLINICAL PARTICIPANT

FUTURE RESEARCH •FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE IN:•LARGER SAMPLE SIZES•A LARGER RANGE OF AGE GROUPS

•INFORMATION COULD BE USED TO DETERMINE HOW STUFF EFFECTS THEIR DAILY LIVES AND HOW PROGRAMS CAN BE DEVELOPED TO HELP NON-CLINICAL INDIVIDUALS LIVE HAPPIER, HEALTHIER, CLUTTER FREE LIVES

QUESTIONS?