WHY DO WE HOLD ON TO PRODUCTS WE NO LONGER USE?
How consumers’ perceived value of neglected products influences their non-disposal behaviour
E.R. van ’t Ende S4843509 Dr. H. Joosten Dr. C. Horvath Radboud Universiteit 17-06-2018
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to answer the following research question. “Why do customers hold on to neglected products?” Neglected product are durable products that are no longer used by consumers. An exploratory, qualitative research was conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews. Five assumptions and matching interview questions guided the data collection and analysis process. The study found that consumers do not dispose of neglected products because of the perceived value they attach to it. Especially the perceived utilitarian value and perceived epistemic value of the neglected product is the reason why consumers hold on to them. Consumers often do not see any benefits in the disposal of a neglected product. They are afraid to experience a feeling of loss when they do dispose of it and a situation arises in which they could have used the product. A theory that could further explain this phenomenon is prospect theory. Future research should try to confirm a relationship between consumers’ non-disposal behaviour of neglected products and prospect theory.
Table of contents Abstract 2 1. Introduction 4 2. Literature 6 2.1. Product neglect 6 2.2. Product disposal 7 3. Methodology 11 3.1. Data collection 11 3.2. Data analysis 14 3.3. Research ethics 15 4. Results 17
4.1. Neglected product characteristics 17
4.2. Reasons for non-disposal 22
4.3. Disposal triggers 28 4.4. Disposal method 32 5. Discussion 38 5.1. Theoretical implications 38 5.2. Practical implications 42 5.3. Limitations 43
5.4. Recommendations for future research 44
5.5. Conclusion 45 References 46 Appendix A 49 Appendix B 51 Appendix C 53 Appendix D 54 Appendix E 55
1. Introduction
For my fifteenth birthday, I was gifted an acoustic guitar. I wanted one really badly because I looked up to my peers that played the guitar. I guess I wanted to be like them. I thought that being able to play the guitar would be an interesting skill to have. Hence, I decided that I wanted to learn how to play the guitar as well, and for that I needed to own one. My birthday was the perfect opportunity. When I finally brought my guitar home, I was ecstatic. For years I tried to teach myself how to play the guitar. However at some point, I did not pick up my guitar anymore. I felt like I was stuck on the same level and wasn’t getting any better. I was lacking the motivation to actually get lessons and other contingency reasons kept me from practicing. Now, almost ten years later, I still own that same guitar. Although I haven’t played it for many years, I have not disposed of it in any way. Why do I keep something that I no longer use?
Anecdotal evidence seems to exist about the phenomenon of consumers holding on to products they no longer use. In informal conversations people seem to recognize themselves with a certain product in mind; pianos serve as decor in living rooms, fitness instruments are catching dust in attics, kitchen tools end up in the back of cupboards, and language courses are neatly stacked away in bookshelves. Generally, consumer behaviour follows the order of acquisition, product use and product disposal (Jacoby, 1976; Trocchia & Janda, 2002). However in this case, products are stuck between the last two phases. Consumers do no longer actively use the product or have not even used the product at all, but they are also not planning on getting rid of the product. Henceforth, this phenomenon will be referred to as product neglect.
A substantial amount of research has been devoted to how consumers acquire and use products, but the disposal of products has not received the same amount of attention (Roster, 2001). Likewise, the only two existing empirical studies about product neglect cover motivations for acquisition and reasons for non-use, but do not go into detail about disposal of neglected products (Trocchia & Janda, 2002; Wansink, Brasel & Amjad, 2000). During the late 1970s, researchers came to acknowledge this gap in literature and others started to further investigate this phase in consumer behaviour (Jacoby, Berning Dietvorst, 1977). Since then, every decennia researchers call for the importance of understanding product disposal (Harreld & McConocha, 1992; Phillips & Sego, 2011).
In summation, little is known about why people keep products they never use. There is a gap in literature regarding the understanding of neglected products. Besides, already in 1988,
of neglected durable products. The purpose of this research is to answer to this call by Belk (1988), to contribute to the body of literature about consumer disposal behaviour. Additionally, this study will continue where existing literature about neglected products left off, providing knowledge about the last phase of consumer behaviour for neglected products. Thus, the research question this study tries to answer is as follows: Why do customers hold on to neglected products?
The remainder of this thesis will be structured as follows. The literature chapter describes the existing literature on the illustrated phenomenon, including some assumptions that will be tested in later sections. Subsequently, the methodology chapter illustrates the method in which data will be collected and analysed. Hereafter, the results chapter will summarise the analysed data produced by the implemented methodology. Lastly, the discussion chapter will conclude this paper by discussing the implications of the results on theory and practice, addressing potential limitations, and giving suggestions for future research.
2. Literature
In this chapter of the study, what is already known about the phenomenon under research will be addressed. Besides, other relevant consumer behaviour theories that could help to better understand the phenomenon are also explained. A set of five assumptions are introduced that will further guide the collection and analysis of data. As a result, these assumptions will be addressed and either confirmed or rejected in chapter 5, discussion. 2.1. Product neglect
The phenomenon under research has been labelled as ‘product neglect’ (Belk, 1988). According to the Cambridge Dictionary, neglecting something means “to not do something, often because you forget” (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus, n.d.). The Oxford Dictionary (n.d.) states that the word ‘neglecting’ comes from the Latin ‘neglegere’. ‘Neg-’ means ‘not’ and ‘legere’ means ‘pick up’. Thus, a neglected product is one that is not picked up by the consumer, possibly because they have forgotten the product.
Not a lot of empirical research has been devoted to product neglect. The ones that did, investigated reasons for acquisition and for non-use (Trocchia & Janda, 2002), but the third phase in consumer behaviour, disposal, has not yet been researched. Consumer product disposal behaviour is known to have received less attention in empirical research than product acquisition and use behaviour (Cruz-Cárdenas & Arévalo-Chávez, 2018; Harrel & McConocha, 1992; Parsons & Maclaran, 2009; Roster, 2001). Moreover, the studies that did investigate neglected products have used varying terms for the phenomenon. Examples are: non-consumerism, underutilization, non-usage, unused products, abandoned products, and castaways (Trocchia & Janda, 2002; Wansink et al., 2000).
Essentially, product neglect can be seen as the antonym of product use. Product use can be expressed in breadth and depth. Depth of product use reflects usage frequency (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Obviously, neglected products will have a low product use depth at the present time. Breadth of product use reflects the variety of usage situations in which the product is used by the consumer (Ram & Jung, 1989; Zaichkowsky, 1985). For kitchen tools, Wansink, Brasel, and Amjad (2000) found that in most cases the neglected product is non-versatile, purchased for a specific usage situation. This study will examine whether this applies to a variety of product categories.
A1. A characteristic of neglected products is their limited versatility (breadth of product use).
Trocchia and Janda (2002, p.188) mention that “items in certain product categories [...] are particularly likely to go unused”. One study investigated neglected kitchen products
(Wansink, Brasel & Amjad, 2000), which is a very broad category that can range from electrical appliances to food ingrediënts. Trocchia and Janda (2002) themselves mentioned that, based on anecdotal evidence, fitness equipment and kitchen appliances would be likely to become neglected. However, neither of these studies, nor any other studies on neglected products have empirically tested which specific products are most likely to become neglected. Both for the current study, as well as for future research, it would be very useful to actually know about what type of products we speak when we talk about neglected products. Therefore, the second assumption of this study is as follows.
A2. Products in certain categories are more likely to become neglected than ones in others.
2.2. Product disposal
Product disposal is “the process by which a consumer discards an offering” (Hoyer, McInnis, & Pieters, 2013, p.4). It is the logical next step in consumer behaviour after product acquisition and use (Jacoby, 1976; Hanson, 1980; Trocchia & Janda, 2002). Roster (2001) argues that to dispose of a product implies the opposite of what it means to possess of a product. When a consumer contemplates whether to dispose of a product, they have three general options available to them: permanently disposing of it (i.e. throwing away, giving away, and selling), temporarily disposing of it (i.e. loaning or renting), or keeping it (Jacoby et al., 1977). The latter is of specific interest and means the product is either stored, continued to be used for its original purpose, or used for another purpose (Jacoby et al., 1977). Specific reasons for keeping a product remain unknown. Thus, delving into reasons why one would dispose of products could possibly give some foundation on why individuals choose to not dispose of something.
Three factors influence consumer disposal behaviour: psychological characteristics of the decision maker, intrinsic product factors, and extrinsic product factors (Jacoby et al., 1977). The ‘non-disposal’ behaviour of consumers with specific psychological characteristics have been empirically researched. Hoarders, purgers, and packrats show behaviour different from the average consumer (Cherrier & Ponnor, 2010; Coulter & Ligas, 2003; Maycroft, 2009). However, as found by Türe (2014), the average consumer also shows an inability to dispose of certain products. “Consumers hold on to ordinary objects that they cannot move through the intended disposition conduits” (Türe, 2014, p.69). Therefore, the tendency to not dispose of neglected products cannot solely be explained by the psychological characteristics of the consumer. In other words, any person can own neglected products. This study will, therefore, focus on the product related factors influencing disposal behaviour. Intrinsic factors are, for
instance, the condition, durability and cost of the product. Examples of factors extrinsic to the product are storage space, functional use, fashion, and urgency (Jacoby et al., 1977).
Usually, products are disposed when they have lost their value in the eyes of the consumer or when they are ‘used up’ (Hoyer et al., 2013). However, a specific type of product, durable goods, are not ‘used up’ but rather can be used over an extended period of time (American Marketing Association, n.d.). Indeed, consumers attribute value to products that are not perishable or are not ‘used up’ during consumption (Coulter & Ligas, 2003). This would imply that, in the case of durable goods, they are disposed of when they have lost their value to the consumer.
Perceived value. One of the earliest studies on value found that consumers perceive value as “what I get for what I give” (Zeithaml, 1988, p.13). Thus, consumers perceive a product’s value by weighing its costs against its benefits. Costs are not limited to monetary costs, but also include non-monetary costs such as time, effort, risk and image (Tasci, 2016). A more recent study found that “value, rather than being intrinsic to goods, is shaped by how consumers perceive and use objects” (Türe, 2014, p.54). If the perceived value of a product is based upon consumers’ interaction with it, what role does value play in neglected products, which are no longer used?
“The value of a product reflects the [...] desire to retain or obtain a product” (Neap & Celik, 1999, p. 181). In other words, the perceived value of a product does not only drive acquisition, it could possibly also explain non-disposal behaviour (Neap & Celik, 1999; Zeithaml, 1988). Indeed, “when disposing of a product, consumers often judge its value” (Brough & Isaac, 2010). Hence, the current study assumes that neglected products, even though not being interacted with, are valued in some way by consumers. This perceived value of the product prevents consumers from disposing of it.
The interpretation of perceived value of a product can vary between consumers (Holbrook, 2006; Woodall, 2003; Zeithaml, 1988). Different researchers, from different research domains, have tried to identify and categorize consumers’ perceived value. A critical review of over 100 studies on consumer value attributed the differences in dimensions and categories found by researchers to the perspective they took on (Tasci, 2016). There is not one dominant perspective on consumer perceived value. Rather, four perspectives were found that influence the way researchers categorise consumer perceived value: financial perspective, functional perspective, social and socio-psychological perspective, and experiential perspective (Tasci, 2016).
A few examples of notable studies that tried to categorize consumer perceived value are worth mentioning. Holbrook (1999, 2006) found that consumers’ perceived value of products can be categorised based on two key dimensions: extrinsic versus intrinsic and self-oriented versus other-self-oriented. These dimensions resulted in four categories: economic value, social value, hedonic value, and altruistic value (Holbrook, 1999, 2006). Sweeney and Soutar (2001) made a distinction between five categories of perceived value: social, emotional, functional, epistemic, and conditional. Yet another study found eight categories in which consumer perceived value can be placed: efficiency, service quality, play, aesthetics, social value, perceived risk, perceived monetary cost, and time and effort spent (Gallarza & Saura, 2006). Thus, there is not a single, mutually exclusive, widely accepted categorization of consumers perceived value of products because there is not one dominant perspective among researchers (Tasci, 2016). The current study will have to show which perceived values consumers attribute to neglected products and how these can be categorised. Therefore, the third assumption this research will test is as follows.
A3. The perceived value of a neglected product influences consumers’ disposal intentions.
Disposal triggers. Disposition behaviour is a function of disposition intention, social factors, and situational factors (Hanson, 1980, p.54). Thus, when the consumer has no disposal intention themselves, situational or social triggers external to the consumer may influence disposal. Indeed, changes in consumers’ circumstances are a typical moment to dispose of objects (Hoyer et al., 2013; Jacoby et al., 1977; Roster, 2001; Young, 1991). Such ‘critical events’, as Roster (2001) calls it, trigger consumers to reassess the value they attributed to objects.
These critical events have also been described as ‘role’ changing events, in which products act as ‘props’ (Hoyer et al., 2013; Young, 1991). Examples of these role changing, critical events are marriage, becoming a parent, moving, changing jobs, and health related changes.
On the other hand there are social factors that influence an individual in disposing of a product (Hanson, 1980). Actually, social factors influence consumers during all three phases of consumer behaviour (Hoyer et al., 2013; Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard, & Hogg, 2010). They can be marketing and non-marketing sources of influence and can be delivered personally or via mass media. In general, non-marketing sources are being perceived as more credible by consumers. This would involve family or friends on a personal level and celebrities or news channels on a mass media level. Personal information sources are believed to be most effective
of the two. (Hoyer et al., 2013). The current study will have to show whether the above holds true for neglected products. Thus, assumption four is as follows.
A4. Consumers’ disposal intentions of neglected product can be influenced by (a) situational changes and (b) social influences.
Waste. Oftentimes, disposal has a negative connotation because it is being associated with waste (Harrell & McConocha, 1992; Hoyer et al., 2013; Wansink et al., 2000). As the earth’s non-renewable resources are depleting, people are seeking ways to reduce waste (Korhonen, Honkasalo, & Seppälä, 2018). Indeed, “we live in a throwaway society, which creates problems for the environment and also results in a great deal of unfortunate waste” (Solomon et al., 2010, p. 214) However, disposing of products is not limited to throwing away. A consumer has a variety of options in which a product can be disposed of: selling, trading, renting, loaning, and giving away (Hoyer et al., 2013).
Keeping products that are not used has also been seen as “potential waste of resources that could be utilized by secondary owners” (Harrell & McConocha, 1992, p.400). Indeed, resisting disposition of products has been associated with consumerism, a waste of resources, and even devaluation of the object (Türe, 2014). On the other hand, circulating products is contributing to a more sustainable way of living (Jonker, Stegeman, & Faber, 2017). Recycling, remanufacturing, and reusing are a few examples of how disposed products can get a second life (Korhonen et al., 2018). This principle is called the ‘Circular Economy’ (Jonker et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018) It is based on the concept that materials are used at their highest value and utility for as long as possible and that waste of materials is minimized (Korhonen et al., 2018). This circulation of products and materials is not only beneficial to the environment, but also to the economy and society (Korhonen et al., 2018).
Besides the perceived value of the product to the customer having an influence on product disposal intentions, the reuse value of the product for others also plays a role. “The preferred disposal method to discard used products relied on one's perception of the reuse value of the product” (Fortuna & Diyamandoglu, 2017, p. 2461). Thus, the method in which a consumer would dispose of a product tells something about the perceived value of the product to the consumer. Indeed, products with a high perceived value are more likely to be sold or given away to someone special rather than to be thrown away (Hoyer et al., 2013). Hence, uncovering how consumers would dispose of neglected products if they really had to, could help to better understand the value of that product. The fifth assumption is, therefore, as follows.
3. Methodology
As previously stated, there is no existing literature available about the specific phenomenon under research. Not a lot is known about the nature of the linkage between neglected products and consumers’ non disposal behaviour. Therefore, an exploratory approach fits the current study (Babbie, 2014). Moreover, it calls for a methodology that is qualitative in nature rather than quantitative. A qualitative approach to this study was most suitable, because it allows for the collection of rich data which is needed for a complex phenomenon such as the one under study (Bleijenbergh, 2013). This chapter explains the method in which data is collected and the process of data analysis, including an interview protocol and coding scheme. Besides, this chapter will address how research ethics are taken into consideration for collecting and analysing data.
3.1. Data collection
The data for this research was collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews. This method of data collection suits the research question and subquestions best. The motivation behind conducting semi-structured interviews as opposed to fully structured or fully unstructured interviews is that it allows the interviewer to ask the same set of questions each interview but also allows room for asking questions based on the respondent’s answer. This will ensure more validity than with a completely unstructured interview. A completely structured interview would provide the highest level of validity in the results (Babbie, 2014; Bleijenbergh, 2013). However, in this research a fully structured interview would be difficult to perform since not enough information is readily available in literature to conduct fully structured questions in a set format. Thus, semi-structured interviews are the most suitable, middle option.
An interview protocol (appendix A) was created to assist during the interviews. It was translated to Dutch because of the native language of the respondents (appendix B). The benefit of an interview protocol is that it helps the interviewer to ask the questions in the same wording each interview, thus providing a higher validity in the results. Also, the interview protocol included some possible probing questions and notes for during the interview which helped in having more organic conversations rather than static interviews.
Structure. The interview protocol consisted of three sections: an introductory section, a section about neglected products, and a section about the non-disposal behaviour related to those neglected products (see appendix A). The assumptions made in the previous chapter acted as guidelines to the interview. Appendix C shows the linkage between the assumptions and interview questions.
The introductory section consisted of three questions. First, respondents were asked to list all the objects or products they own but no longer use. After, they were asked which ones they would not want to dispose. Finally, they were asked to choose one of the products they would not want to get rid of to keep in mind during the remainder of the interview.
The second section was intended to uncover which type of products are most likely to become neglected. The nine open-ended questions that made up this neglected products section were asked structurally and identically for all respondents. A few previously prepared follow-up questions and notes for the interviewer provided enough information for the first and second assumption of this study.
The third part of the interview, about consumers’ disposal intentions was less structured compared to the section about the neglected products. It contained three general questions. The interview protocol included some suggestions, notes and sub-questions to further guide the researcher in the interview.
The first question of the disposal behaviour section, related to assumption 3, asked the respondent “what is keeping you from disposing the product?” As this question is closely related to the research question of this paper, it was the most important question of the interview. The interview protocol noted to apply the laddering technique by asking the respondent “why?” or to explain their answer in further detail. Based on literature, the follow up questions involved the various ways in which the product could still be meaningful to the respondent. Some follow-up questions helped respondents who found it difficult to explain their thoughts.
The second question of the disposal behaviour section was related to assumption 4: “What would trigger you to dispose of the product?” Laddering was also applied based on the answers given by the respondents on this question. Knowing why a certain trigger would elicit disposal can provide some practical implications for marketing.
The third and last question of the disposal behaviour section and the entire interview was as follows: “If, at some point, you would decide to dispose of the [product], in what way would you do so?” This question was put into the interview to provide data for assumption 5. Knowing in what way a person would dispose of a product could tell a lot about what the product means to the consumer.
Respondents. Anyone could participate in this study. There was no specific sample necessary because the research question and sub-questions involve all consumers. There were no gender, age, nationality or education level constraints when inviting individuals to
noted down for segmentation purposes. The researcher personally invited individuals from her personal network to participate in the interview. Also, snowball sampling was applied by asking respondents whether they knew someone else that would possibly want to participate in the interviews and their contact details. This way, 10 individuals were contacted through the researchers personal network and 2 through the extended network. Most contacted individuals responded positively to the invitation and expressed their interest in the topic.
When inviting people to participate in the study, the researcher explained the purpose of the study, what was meant by neglected products, and what would be expected of them if they chose to participate in the study. Also, after the first few interviews it became clear that respondents found it quite difficult to think of neglected products on the spot. Hence, for the remaining interviews the first question was already posed to the respondents in advance so they could already look around their home and think about products they own and no longer use. If necessary, the researcher could name some product categories that would most likely contain neglected products. This resulted in the respondent being able to name more neglected products than the first few interviewees.
Collection. Interviews took place between the 7th and 25th of may 2019. All of them were face-to-face interviews and lasted between 11:29 minutes and 25:00 minutes, with an average of 16:17 minutes. The interviews were held in Dutch because of the Dutch nationality of all respondents. This allowed them to communicate their thoughts in their native language. This is especially important with a research like the current one, since it tries to uncover underlying thoughts behind certain actions (Babbie, 2014; Bleijenbergh, 2013). There was no language barrier constraining them from vocalizing their thoughts. Interviews were, only with the respondents’ consent, recorded for transcription purposes. In total, 12 interviews were scheduled of which 11 actually took place. One interview was cancelled a couple of hours beforehand. Six female and five male respondents participated. Initially, not a specific number of interviews were planned. The amount of interviews that would be scheduled, was based on the saturation criterium. This saturation criterium means that new interviews were scheduled as long as answers on interview questions given by an interviewee differed from the ones given by the earlier respondents (Francis, Johnston, Robertson, Glidewell, Entwistle, Eccles, & Grimshaw, 2010). The most important section on which saturation was a criterium was the second one about the non-disposal intentions of respondents since this is the central question of this study.
Follow up. As some respondents mentioned that a conversation like the one they were having, the interview, would trigger disposal it would be interesting to know what happened to
the product after the interview. Therefore, some time after the last interview was held, all respondents were contacted ones more. On June 4 and 5 all interviewees were contacted and asked to answer one open-ended question via a voice memo: “What has happened to the product since our chat?” The answers to this question have been transcribed and have been added to the existing transcriptions. They were also included in the coding process. The results of this follow up could provide some valuable implications for theory and practice. The following chapters will delve deeper into these results.
3.2. Data analysis
During and after the period in which the interviews were held, all interviews were transcribed word for word. The software NVIVO was used to code and analyse the transcripts (see appendix D for a summary). These transcripts served as the datasource for the results and discussion section.
Coding. The first section of the interview had a more straightforward coding scheme compared to the second section. The assumptions in the previous chapter guided the entire coding process. They acted as overall categories as the interview questions were based on them. The final coding scheme in NVIVO (see appendix E) aided in summarising and interpreting the data provided by the respondents better.
Characteristics. The codes that guided the results section for the neglected product characteristics were more straightforward. All neglected products that were mentioned were counted and categorized using axial coding. This resulted in numerical data in a table which could be easily interpreted. Differences between males and females could also be distinguished that way. For the acquisition method, numerical data could also provide valuable insights. Neglected products were coded on a new versus second hand dimension as well as on a gifted versus bought dimension. This resulted in a cross table, conducted in NVIVO, which made the interpretation of data more manageable. For the depth and breadth of product use individual pieces of interview had to be analysed as these results could not be counted. The results section provides some examples to represent the answers given by the respondents.
Perceived value. Throughout the entire interview, each time a respondent referred to some form of perceived value of the neglected product, it was coded under ‘value’. When all interviews were coded, there were 70 references to the perceived value of the neglected product. Afterwards, all coded pieces of interview were analysed and given a more specific perceived value code. Eventually, through axial coding based on the different categories of perceived value presented throughout literature (see Tasci, 2016), categories of similar notions of
perceived value could be identified. The final codes for perceived value used were: economic, hedonic, symbolic, epistemic, aesthetic, emotional, functional, social, and risk.
Reasons for non-disposal. For the first question of the second section - what keeps one from disposing of a neglected product - the perceived value codes came in hand. All reasons for not wanting to dispose of a neglected product were coded under the code ‘non-disposal’. Then, these codes could be cross referenced with the perceived value codes by using NVIVO. This revealed exactly how many times respondents did not want to dispose of a neglected product because of the perceived value of the product. Also, the specific type of perceived value that played a role in the non-disposal intentions was reported. Some reasons for non-disposal were not because of perceived value. These motivations were individually and manually analysed.
Disposal triggers. For the second question - what would trigger one to dispose of a neglected product - codes for both situational triggers and social triggers were used. However, there were some things mentioned by respondents that didn’t fit these two categories. The social and situational triggers are more consumer extrinsic factors that would cause disposal. However, by analysing the other uncoded triggers mentioned by respondents, it because clear that triggers intrinsic and extrinsic to the product as well as triggers intrinsic to the consumer could cause disposal. Therefore, the following codes were used in the final coding scheme: product intrinsic triggers, product extrinsic triggers, consumer intrinsic triggers, and consumer extrinsic triggers (i.e. situational triggers and social triggers).
Disposal method. For the third and last question of the interview - how one would dispose of a neglected product - the various ways in which an individual can dispose of an object. For the codes the disposal options by Jacoby et al. (1977) were used. Since the question was asked based on a ‘what if’ scenario, (i.e. how one would dispose of the product if they really had to) the keep option was likely not to be mentioned by respondent. Nevertheless, the keep code needed to be applied after all. For permanent disposal the codes throw away, give away, sell and trade were used. For temporary disposal the codes loan and rent were used.
Follow-up. For the follow-up question a code for use and a code for disposal was used to see whether the products were reused after the interview or whether it may have triggered disposal. If the respondent disposed of the product the method by which this was done was coded under the same ‘disposal’ code.
3.3. Research ethics
In order to ensure that the data collection for this research was executed ethically, participants had to provide verbal informed consent before participating. Before any interview
is performed, the respondent was informed about the purpose of the research, what would be expected from them during the interview, and what the data would be used for. Moreover, respondents were informed about the confidentiality of the interview and about the fact that they could quit the interview at any point without reason. Last, the respondents were asked whether the interviewer was allowed to note down their gender for segmentation purposes and whether the interview may be recorded for transcription purposes. If their gender was allowed to be noted down, the researcher made sure that the gender or label the individual identified with was noted down.
Since the interviews were held face-to-face full anonymity cannot be ensured. The researcher, who took the interviews, will know which individual gave which answers. However, the link between the individuals and the data can be kept confidential from third parties. This was done in several ways. First, the researcher will never disclose the identities of the respondents. Second, personal details, such as names, ages, contact details, addresses, names of institutions and organizations that could link the data to the individual were removed from the transcripts. Third, the recordings and voice memos were only accessed by the researcher for transcription purposes and not used for anything else. To ensure maximum confidentiality, the recordings cannot be accessed by anybody else than the researcher. After transcription, the transcripts will be further used in data analysis. In case the interview was stopped by the respondent, anything said during the interview would not be used in the research and the recording would be deleted to ensure maximum confidentiality.
Of the 12 planned interviews, 11 took place and one was cancelled a few hours before the start of the interview. The remaining respondents all consented to the terms above and allowed the researcher to record the interviews and note their gender. Six female and five male respondents contributed to this research.
Moreover, the researcher filled out a research integrity form provided by the Nijmegen School of Management of the Radboud University. This form ensures that the current research is conducted according to the Netherlands Code of Conduct on Scientific Practice.
4. Results
In the interviews, respondents were first asked about the specific types of neglected products. Thereafter, the interview delved into the disposal intentions, or rather non-disposal intentions of the respondents. All the interviews were transcribed and coded based upon the assumptions made in chapter 2. The current chapter provides a summary of the collected and analysed data. Each sub section relates to one or two assumptions, gives some examples of what respondents said, and contains a synopsys at the end with the most important findings. As the interviews were conducted in Dutch, the quotes are translated to English.
4.1. Neglected product characteristics
Table 1 represents and overview of the total number of neglected products mentioned by respondents. Respondents were asked what durable products they owned that they no longer used (a). After they listed them, they were asked which of those they do not intend to dispose of (b). Respondents were asked to keep one of these in mind for the remainder of the interview (c). The neglected product can be divided up into seven categories. Female respondents were able to name a lot more neglected products (43 product) across the different categories than the male respondents (23 products). In total, the respondents listed 68 products.
Almost all respondents (10), female just as much as male, named 23 products that can be found in the kitchen. Mixing bowls, citrus squeezers, plates, pans, a coffee machine and a toaster are just a few of the durable products that can be found in the kitchen. A close second is electronics and their accessories, mentioned by 9 respondents (5 male, 4 female). Some examples of the 23 listed products are mobile phones, a mini drone, a laptop, a sun lamp, a printer, and a record player. The appearance category (14 products) has a noticable difference between male (1) and female (6) respondents. Products such as accessories, shoes, and clothes belong in this category. For music instruments (4 products) 3 females mentioned a guitar and 1 male mentioned a keyboard. Three female respondents mentioned a book as a neglected product and 1 male listed 3 different construction tools.
Interestingly, when asked which of the products the respondents did not intent to dispose of, the order changes. Most respondents would not want to dispose of neglected products in the electronics category first (5 respondents, 5 products), the kitchen category second (3 respondents, 5 products), and the music instruments category third (4 respondents, 4 products). The music instruments and construction tools categories are most interesting here. Of all the neglected products in these categories, none of the respondents would be willing to dispose of any of the listed products. In other categories respondents were willing to dispose of some of the products they mentioned in their response after the first question. For instance, for the three
most popular categories mentioned at the first question, respondents would want to keep 22% of the neglected products in the kitchen, 29% of the electronics, and 21% of the neglected products in the appearance category.
Table 1
Categorization of neglected products
Categories F M Total R P R P R P a. Neglected products 18 45 19 23 37 68 Kitchen 5 17 5 6 10 23 Electronics 4 7 5 10 9 17 Appearance 6 12 1 2 7 14
Furniture & lighting 2 3 1 1 3 4
Music instrument 3 3 1 1 4 4 Books 3 3 0 0 3 3 Construction tools 0 0 1 3 1 3 b. No disposal intentions 12 (.67) 14 (.31) 6 (.32) 8 (.35) 18 (.49) 22 (.32) Electronics 2 (.50) 2 (.29) 3 (.60) 3 (.30) 5 (.56) 5 (.29) Kitchen 2 (.40) 4 (.24) 1 (.20) 1 (.17) 3 (.30) 5 (.22) Music instruments 3 (1.0) 3 (1.0) 1 (1.0) 1 (1.0) 4 (1.0) 4 (1.0) Appearance 3 (.50) 3 (.25) 0 (-) 0 (-) 3 (.43) 3 (.21) Books 2 (.67) 2 (.67) 0 (-) 0 (-) 2 (.67) 2 (.67) Construction tools 0 (-) 0 (-) 1 (1.0) 3 (1.0) 1 (1.0) 3 (1.0) c. Interviewed 6 - 5 - 11 - Electronics 1 - 3 - 4 - Music instrument 2 - 1 - 3 - Appearance 2 - 0 - 2 - Kitchen 1 - 0 - 1 - Construction tools 0 - 1 - 1 -
Note. F = female responses, M = male responses, R = number of respondents, P = number of neglected products. Numbers between brackets is the fraction of respondents and products from the total number of respondents and products.
For the remainder of the interviews the following products were chosen by the respondents: 4 electronic products (i.e. a laptop, a printer, a sun lamp, and a record player); 3 music instrument (i.e. two guitars and a keyboard); 2 appearance product (i.e. earrings and artificial turf shoes); 1 kitchen product (a pan); and 1 construction tool (a trench cutter).
Acquisition. Respondents were asked when and how they came to acquire the neglected product. Besides, they were asked about the cost of acquisition of the product (i.e. time, money, and effort put into the acquisition). Of the 11 neglected products picked for the interview, 6 were gifted and 5 were bought by the respondent themselves (see table 2). The guitars (R03 and R04), pan (R05), keyboard (R07), sun lamp (R09), the artificial turf shoes (R10) were gifted, whereas the earrings (R01), laptop (R02), printer (R06), trench cutter (R08), and record player (R11) were bought.
Besides the dimension gifted versus bought, the neglected products could be divided into newly acquired or second hand products (see table 2). For one product, the pan, it was unknown whether the product was brand new when it was gifted or whether it was second hand. As for the remaining products, 6 were newly acquired, whereas 4 were acquired second hand. Of the gifted products 2 were new (i.e. the keyboard and the artificial turf shoes), whereas 3 were second hand. The two guitars from respondent 3 and 4 were passed on in the family and the sun lamp was received from an acquaintance who had no use for it anymore. One of the products, the record player, was bought second hand, whereas the earrings, laptop, printer, and trench cutter were newly bought.
Table 2
Acquisition methods of neglected products
Gifted Bought Total
New 2 4 6
Second Hand 3 1 4
Unknown 1 0 1
Total 6 5 11
The neglected products were acquired at different moments in time. The oldest product was the sun lamp, acquired about 25 years ago. Neglected products that were more recently acquired, in the previous two years, are the laptop, the pan, and the record player. Most of the respondents did not exactly know how long ago they had acquired the neglected product, they had to estimate.
Cost. Of all the neglected products, the gifted ones required little to no time, money or effort to acquire them. Respondent 10, who was gifted the artificial turf shoes, did express that the neglected product cost quite some money at the time. For this reason, her mother bought her the products instead of having to buy the product herself as a teenager. As for the monetary costs of the bought products, the opinions were divided. Three respondents, the owners of the earrings, printer and artificial turf shoes, thought at the time of acquisition that the product cost a decent amount of money. Though, they did express that the product was worth the money, the benefits weighed up against the cost. Respondent 2 and 8 also expressed that they thought the costs were reasonable for what they received. Respondent 11 explained that, since he bought the record player second hand, the product was actually cheap relative to new versions.
Most of the respondents who bought the neglected products themselves explained that not a lot of time and effort went into the acquisition. One respondent, the owner of the record player, did put quite some time and effort in the acquisition but also expressed that he enjoyed the process of acquiring the product
R11: I bought it second hand so it was very cheap compared to the new price, so I had a really good deal. But [...] I had to put a lot of effort into it. Well, I've waited a long time for a good deal to come along on Marktplaats and then I did negotiate a lot. And then I had to take the bus to somewhere just past [place name] and then I had to walk another 15 minutes. And after, I had to walk back with that thing in my hands and go by bus back again to [hometown]. So I went through a lot of trouble for that. But then it was much cheaper so I found that it was balanced.
Depth of product use. When respondents were asked how often they had used the neglected product, they could not exactly retrieve the number of times they had used it. The answers also varied quite a lot per respondent. Five respondents, the owners of the laptop, the guitar, the printer, the keyboard, the sun lamp, and the record player reported that they used the product quite frequently directly after acquisition but that this decreased after some time. Other respondents (see R01 and R08) mentioned that they used the product once per year when the situation arose. Respondent 5 mentioned not exactly knowing how frequently she used her pan but thought it was about 6 or 7 times. Respondent 10 explained that she used her artificial turf shoes quire irregularly throughout the seven years that she had owned it
years. [...] Well, that was 3 years, with 3 years in between, and last year [I used them] again a summer season and currently [I] no longer [use them].
When asked what the last moment was when the respondent used the product, answers ranged from a few weeks ago to 7 years ago. Most products, six in total, have been used in the past twelve months, approximately. These are the guitar of respondent 4, the pan, the printer, the trench cutter, the artificial turf shoes, and the record player. The other products have been neglected for over a year.
Breadth of product use. Respondents were asked in how many different situations they could use the neglected product or how many functionalities it had. One product was more versatile than the other. Most products, however, were not very versatile and only had one or two functionalities. The earrings, pan, printer, keyboard, trench cutter, sun lamp, and record player were labelled as not very versatile products by the respondents. They would either require a specific usage situation or only had one or two functionalities. For instance, respondent 9 mentioned that the purpose of the sun lamp was just to get a tan but could potentially also be used on muscle pains. However, she explained that recently a situation occurred where she could have used the sun lamp for muscle pains but she did not think of using the product at that time.
The guitars were somewhat versatile. The owners mentioned that they could practice on it at home but could also potentially use it in their job, with a friend and in a group of people (see transcript R03 and R04). The artificial turf shoes were also somewhat versatile. They required a specific surface to be worn on but could be used to play any sports with on that surface (R10). Last, the laptop was the most versatile neglected product. It was used by respondent 2 for study purposes, work, watching tv series and movies, and for online shopping. Non-use reasons. The reasons why products became neglected also differed quite a lot per product. The guitars, pan, keyboard, sun lamp, and record player required much more effort than the respondent was willing to put into. For instance, the pan was difficult in use and maintenance which discouraged respondent 5 of using it. Another example is the sun lamp, which became neglected because it had to be used very frequently in order to see small results (see transcript R09). The laptop and printer were replaced by something that provided the same functionality. The laptop by a newer model and the printer was replaced by a free printing service at university. The earrings, trench cutter, artificial turf shoes required specific situations that hadn’t occurred in a long time. An additional reason for non-use for the earrings is that it
is susceptible to fashion trends which can change over time. As the earrings had been acquired about 7 years ago, the respondent explained that she wasn’t sure it fit her current fashion style. Synopsys. As results show, most neglected products fall in the kitchen, electronics and appearance categories. Moreover, respondents indicated that of the neglected products the ones they do not want to dispose of are electronic products, kitchen products, and music instruments. The acquisition method of most neglected product was newly bought. Second hand gifted neglected products were then the biggest category. Only two products were newly gifted and one bought second hand.
The cost put into the acquisition of the product, either money, time or both, varied per neglected product. The gifted products required little to no effort, whereas the respondents who bought the products themselves reported equivocal costs. Besides, the depth of product use in the past varied a lot among the different products. However, the breadth of product use for almost all neglected product was very limited.
Last, three non-use reasons were mentioned most often by the respondents. The products became neglected because they required too much effort, were replaced by another product with the same functionality, or were situation dependent which hadn’t occurred since their last point of usage. The last reason is related to the versatility of the neglected product. Therefore, it can be concluded that neglected products can be characterised by their limited versatility.
4.2. Reasons for non-disposal
As previously mentioned, this study assumes that consumers non-disposal intentions are linked to the consumer’s perceived value of the product. Respondents were asked what kept them from disposing of the product. Most respondents found it rather difficult to exactly pinpoint the reason for their non-disposal behaviour. Probing questions and the laddering technique aided in collecting results for this question. Anytime a respondent mentioned the perceived value in the neglected product as a motivation to not dispose of the product, it was coded. These codes could be categorised as follows: economic, risk, hedonic, social, utilitarian, emotional, aesthetic, symbolic, and epistemic. Important to note is that not every reason could be coded under a perceived value code. These are represented under ‘other’ and will be explained in further detail below. Table 3 shows a cross reference between the product categories and the reason for non disposal.
As can be derived from table 3, the perceived economic value and the perceived risk value were mentioned most often. The perceived utility value was most frequently mentioned
Economic Utility Symbolic Social Emotional Epistemic Hedonic Total Electronics (4) 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 2** R02 - Laptop 1 1* 0 0 0 0 0 1 R06 - Printer 1 1* 0 0 0 0 0 1 R09 - Sun lamp 1 1* 1 0 0 0 0 2 R11 - Record player 1 0 1 0 0 0 1* 2 Music Instrument (3) 0 0 2 2 3 0 1 4** R03 - Guitar 0 0 0 1 1 1* 0 2 R04 - Guitar 0 0 1 1 1 1* 0 3 R07 - Keyboard 0 0 1 0 1 1* 1 3 Appearance (2) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2** R01 - Earrings 1 1 1* 0 0 0 0 2
R10 - Artificial turf shoes 1 1* 0 0 0 0 0 1
Kitchen (1) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1**
R05 - Pan 0 1* 0 1 0 0 0 1
Construction tools (1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1**
R08 - Trench cutter 1 1* 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total (11) 7 7 5 3 3 3 2 7
disposal behaviour. How heavily the perceived value weighed in the non-disposal intentions of the respondent differed per individual.
The number of different types of perceived values mentioned differed across neglected product categories. In general, the perceived economic value and perceived utility values were most often referenced, by 7 respondents each. Next, the perceived symbolic value was referred to by 5 respondents. Following, perceived social, emotional, and epistemic values were mentioned equally as often, by 3 respondents each. Last, 2 respondents mentioned the perceived hedonic value as an influencer of non-disposal behaviour.
Economic. The economic perceived value influenced the non-disposal behaviour of the respondents in two ways. Some respondents were not planning on disposing of the product because of the money they spent on it, others because they would not receive any economic value in return for disposing of the product. This perceived value especially influenced the owners of neglected products in the categories electronics, appearance, and construction tools. It was not at all of importance for music instruments and the pan. Thus, respondents do not want to dispose of the product because the economic value of the product will be lost.
R02: “But it is still an object of 300-350 euro. So that is [...] something you may not very easily say goodbye to if you don't necessarily have to.”
R08: “But if I were to sell it, [I would not get much for it]. So that could also be another reason to say, 'well, then I won't get rid of it'.”
Utility. The perceived utility value of the product was named as a reason for non disposal by respondents in almost all neglected product categories except for music instruments. Basically, respondents who noted this type of perceived value do not want to dispose of the neglected product because they think it is convenient to own the product in case they ever need the functionality. They all said they thought that a potential usage situation will arise in the future. If they would dispose of the product, they would no longer be able to benefit from the products functionality. This risk kept them from disposing of the product.
Some respondents explained that they would be ‘bummed out’ or have regretted the decision to dispose of the product if that happened. This potential loss is the reason why they are not willing to dispose of the product.
temporarily. [...] Simply the fear that the current laptop will break down and then I will have nothing. [...] It can also be stolen, my current laptop and then, at least, you have a spare one. It just gives some kind of certainty that you have something in case of emergency.”
Symbolic. The owners of the earrings, one of the guitars, the keyboard, and the record player mentioned that their non-disposal behaviour was in varying degrees influenced by the perceived symbolic value. In other words, the product helped the respondents to either express or enhance themselves with the product. They showed people around them a little bit of who they are. For respondent 8 (keyboard) and repondent 11 (record player) a minor, concomitant reason to keep the neglected product. For respondent 4 (guitar), when asked whether she did not want to dispose of the product cause of the perceived symbolic value, she answered the following.
R04: Well, I think so, yeah. I think quite a lot. Because I do like to be someone who can play [...] the guitar. [...] Yes, I think it says something about who you are [...] and I think that that's a positive association.
For the owner of the earrings, the neglected product helped them to enhance the respondents appearance in the past. She explained she very much liked the earrings at the point of purchase and in the period thereafter. However, as more time passed, she started to question whether they fit with the way she currently wanted to present herself. Untill she has made up her mind about the earrings, she will not dispose of them.
R01: I also think that, with a lot of earrings but also with these earrings, you now think [...] 'do I actually still like them or not? Am I going to wear them or not?' That you actually have some crazy doubts about that. [...] I think I quite often bought something that made me think 'yeah, I think I like this', and then afterwards I thought 'I am not really sure how much I like them'. And in that doubt I remain. So that is why I don't get rid of it.
Social. The owners of the guitars, and the pan all mentioned that the perceived social value of the neglected product influenced their non-disposal behaviour. They explained that the fact that they could use the product for or during social situations was the reason for them to keep it. The guitars of respondent 3 and 4 could be used to play for and with other people. The pan enabled respondent 5 to prepare meals for groups of people.
Emotional. The perceived emotional value of the product was only mentioned by the owners of the music instruments. For all of them this was not the main reason to keep the
neglected product. Respondent 3 and 4 who were gifted a guitar from their parents had meaningful memories attached to it. Therefore, the perceived emotional value played a role in their non-disposal behaviour. Interestingly, respondent 4 noted: “I think there is more emotional value to playing the guitar than to this specific guitar”. Respondent 7, the owner of the keyboard, explained that the perceived emotional value of the product was related to the fact that his father bought him the keyboard. By doing so, respondent 7 felt like his father really endorsed his ambition. However, for him it was more of an auxiliary reason rather than the main reason to dispose of the product.
Epistemic. The perceived epistemic value was only mentioned by the owners of music instruments as a reason for non-disposal. The respondents all explained that the neglected product they owned all depended on a specific skill. They had all tried to learn the skill, either playing the piano or guitar, but did not succeed in doing so on their desired level. Moreover, they all expressed to have the ambition to learn or develop the skill and to be able to actually play the instrument. Besides, all of them expressed that this was the main reason for them to keep and not dispose of the neglected product. When respondent 3 was asked with what motivation she acquired the guitar she joked: "Because I was hoping to become an amazing guitar player. No, I was hoping that, yeah, I could learn to play the guitar." Respondent 7 even expressed that it would feel like failing if he decided to dispose of the product.
R07: “Somehow it still itches a little. I think ‘I'm going to pick [playing the keyboard] up again someday'.”
Hedonic. For the record player and the keyboard the reason for non-disposal was related to the hedonic aspect of the neglected product. The keyboard provided respondent 7 with a way to make music, something he enjoys making. The response from the owner of the record player, respondent 11, was a little different. He believed that he did not get the full potential out of the record player and believed that it could potentially be a lot of fun. This potential hedonic value was the main reason for him to not dispose of the product.
R11: “Well, I'm still convinced of the great potential it has. So, potentially it is still very fun and it is still very enjoyable and it has a lot of charm. So that potential, it has not lost that, the opportunity is still there. [I could] now decide to buy a lot of records and work on a collection, then it can be a lot of fun. So that makes you think 'well, I just keep it'.”
11 respondents mentioned something that was categorised under other reasons. Eight respondents said that they had enough space to store the product or that it didn’t stand in their way. Four respondents said something along the lines of “if I don’t actually have to dispose of the product, why would I?”
R11: “So there's not that much [...] of a push factor to get rid of that thing.”
Moreover, respondent 4 and 10 said something no other respondent had mentioned. R04: “My parents own other guitars, so that's why I don't feel guilty that it's not mine but it's here and it's not used.”
R10: “And quite frankly [...] I've never thought about getting rid of them. It has never occurred to me.”
Purpose. Interestingly, when respondents were asked what the motivation for acquiring the neglected product was they referred to the same perceived value types as the ones that influenced their non-disposal intentions. In other words, the motivation that drove respondents to acquire the neglected products plays a role in their non-disposal intentions. The laptop, pan printer, sun lamp, artificial turf shoes, and trench cutter were all acquired because of their utility value. This utility value is now the main reason why they do not want to dispose of the product. The music instruments were all acquired with the motivation to learn a new skill. This perceived epistemic value now influences them to keep the neglected product. For the record player this was the perceived hedonic value and for the earrings the perceived aesthetic value of the product that both influenced their acquisition and their non-disposal behaviour.
Synopsys. In total, seven types of perceived value could be distinguished from respondents motivations to not dispose of a neglected product: economic, utility, symbolic, social, emotional, epistemic, and hedonic. Of those, four were mentioned as most influential. Firstly, six respondents indicated the perceived utility value as most important. Second, three respondents explained that the perceived epistemic value was most important. Last, the perceived symbolic value and the perceived hedonic value each influenced one respondent’s non-disposal behaviour. Essentially, all respondents did not want to dispose of the product because this perceived value is then lost.
In summation, the perceived value of a neglected product influences consumers’ non-disposal behaviour. These perceived values are the same ones that drove the consumers to acquire of the neglected product in the first place. Besides perceived values, consumers also keep neglected product because they did not see the benefit of disposing of it.
4.3. Disposal triggers
Respondents were asked what would cause them to dispose of the neglected product. As briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, four broad categories of disposal triggers could be distinguished from the respondents’ answers, of which consumer extrinsic factors were mentioned by 10 of the 11 interviewees. Only the respondent who was interviewed about his printer would not be triggered by consumer extrinsic factors. These consumer extrinsic factors can be further divided up between social factors and situational factors (Hanson,1980; Hoyer et al., 2013; Roster, 2001; Solomon et al., 2010; Young, 1999). Important to mention is that different triggers in different categories, sometimes even an accumulation of triggers, would cause respondents to dispose of the neglected product.
Situational triggers. In 9 of those 10 interviews, the respondent mentioned that situational changes could trigger the disposal of the selected product. The disposal of earrings (R01) would not be triggered by an event. Examples of the changes that were mentioned are moving, change of job, ageing, change of hobby or interest. Moving homes was most often mentioned as a reason to dispose of a neglected product (7 out of 9 interviews). Only for the laptop and the artificial turf shoes this would not a trigger disposal. Some respondents explained that moving triggered them to re-evaluate certain products.
R07: “Probably a move, because then you will consider ‘okay, what are we going to take with us, what is really useful, and what should I throw away?’ There's a chance that [the keyboard] won't make it through the selection.”
For other respondents, the move would trigger disposal of neglected products when they would move to a smaller home with limited space. The products they were interviewed about would then be more likely to be disposed of than other objects.
R08: “Suppose we [...] would go and live smaller, then you would have to clean up certain things. And if tools had to be cleaned up, then [the trench cutter] would perhaps be one of the pieces that would be disposed of.”
As previously mentioned, a change in homes was not the only situational trigger. For the laptop owner and one guitar owner a change in job would primarily be a trigger to dispose of it because the reason for non-disposal would be nullified by that event. For the trench cutter, besides a move, ageing would trigger disposal. More specifically, the respondent (R08) mentioned that when he could not “do any more DIY projects due to age”, it would trigger
individual has any control over this. A change in hobby (i.e. no longer practicing the specific sport that requires the shoes), would trigger the disposal of the artificial turf shoes according to respondent 10. Besides a move, the disposal of a record player would be triggered by financial reasons. On this, respondent 11 mentioned that he could very well use the money he would earn from selling the record player for something else that would be enjoyable to him. Thus, a change in interest and the financial benefits from selling the record player would drive respondent 11.
One other remark that is worth mentioning is that respondent 10 said that she would dispose of her artificial turf shoes when she would be certain that she would not be needing them in the future, that the specific usage situation would not emerge. However, quickly after that she said: “now that I’m thinking, of course you will never know whether that situation will arise again” (loosely translated from the R10 transcript).
Social trigger. Aside from the situational trigger, four of the 10 respondents would be triggered by consumer extrinsic factors in the form of social influences. Firstly, the earrings from respondent 1 would be susceptible to disposal when someone would dislike them or would express the misfit between the product and the respondent. Secondly, the sunlamp and the artificial turf shoes would be disposed of when the respondent would hear of someone else that could very well use the object. Besides, the respondents of these two objects (R09 and R10 respectively), as well as the owner of the record player (R11) pointed out that the interview in itself could trigger the disposal of the neglected product.
R09: “I think after this conversation I'm going to get rid of it.”
R10: “It has never occurred to me [...] so maybe this is also a trigger to dispose of them.”
R11: “But purely because you're asking about it now, I'm already thinking, ‘shouldn't I be selling it?’”
Follow-up. The follow-up after the interview was a way to check what happened to the neglected products following the interview. Nine respondents said that nothing happened to the product and that it continued to be neglected. Two respondents said that they had disposed of the product in the meantime. One of them, respondent 1, made a conscious decision to not dispose of the product. She re-evaluated the product and realised that it held some emotional value and expressed her intentions of using it in the near future.
R01: "‘[...] they are really things I would just wear on special occasions’. For example, I have a wedding on Friday where I'm going to sing. I thought, ‘yes, you know what, I'm going to wear them’. [...]
So I will keep them, because I think they're cool and I'm actually going to use them. So [...] I have honestly decided "I'm not going to get rid of them".
Frankly, the three respondents who thought the interview might trigger disposal did not dispose of it. One of them, respondent 11, did express their intentions of disposing of the record player by wanting to sell it.
R11:”Because, according to my own rules, I would have to get rid of it, so mentally it is on a kind of 'things-that-can-go' list. But when I say it like that, it actually implies that I have already distanced myself from it in my head.”
The two respondents who disposed of the products did that for different reasons. Respondent 2 said that he temporarily disposed of the laptop. He explained that a friend was in need of a replacement laptop while theirs was being repaired.
R02: “And then I thought, ‘hey, I've got an extra one that works well". So I lent it [to a friend] and it's still with her. I have not been missing it and she could use it really well. So, a convenient solution, it seemed to me.”
Respondent 3 explained that she went through a move in the meantime. This triggered her to dispose of the guitar that was gifted to her by her mother. After five years, she returned it to her mother because of the fact that she did no longer use the guitar.
Consumer intrinsic triggers. Beside extrinsic triggers, respondents also mentioned that a trigger to dispose of a product could come from within themselves. Of the 11 respondents, 5 respondents said that an internal acceptance (guitars [R03, R04]) or an internal urge to clean up (earrings [R01], pan [R05], and the artificial turf shoes [R10]) could lead to disposal of the neglected product.
R03: “Maybe, after I’ve accepted that I won’t be a guitar player.” R10: “It is also mood dependent. Sometimes I'm on a big clean-up mission, so to speak, and then I think ‘oh well...’”
Product extrinsic and intrinsic triggers. For 5 respondents product extrinsic triggers would cause them to dispose of the neglected product and for 4 product intrinsic factors would trigger them. The most common product extrinsic trigger that was mentioned was a substitute. For the laptop (R02), the pan (R05), the printer (R06), the trench cutter (R08) something that would substitute the function of the neglected product would trigger them to dispose of the
