Delft University of Technology
Too good to go? Consumers’ replacement behaviour and potential strategies for
stimulating product retention
van den Berge, Renske; Magnier, Lise; Mugge, Ruth DOI
10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.014 Publication date
2021
Document Version Final published version Published in
Current Opinion in Psychology
Citation (APA)
van den Berge, R., Magnier, L., & Mugge, R. (2021). Too good to go? Consumers’ replacement behaviour and potential strategies for stimulating product retention. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.014
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.
Too
good
to
go?
Consumers’
replacement
behaviour
and
potential
strategies
for
stimulating
product
retention
Renske
van
den
Berge,
Lise
Magnier
and
Ruth
Mugge
Manyproductsaredisposedofbeforetheyhavereachedthe
endoftheirfunctionallife.Newtechnologicaldevelopments
andtrendsinfashionseemtoaccelerateconsumers’
replacementofproducts.Fromanenvironmentalperspective,
suchearlyreplacementisundesirable.Inthispaper,we
emphasizethatproductreplacementisnotonlybasedon
rationaldecisionmaking.Emotional,functional,social,
epistemicandconditionalvaluescaninfluencethevalue
trade-offsthatconsumersmakeduringthedecisiontoeitherretainan
ownedproductorreplaceitwithanewone.Severalstrategies
arediscussedthatcanincreasetheownedproduct’svalues
andstimulateretentionviaproductattachment,sustaining
aestheticvalue,stimulatingproductcareandmaintenance,
andenablingupgradeability.
Address
FacultyofIndustrialDesignEngineering,DelftUniversityofTechnology, Landbergstraat15,2628?CEDelft,TheNetherlands
Correspondingauthor:Mugge,Mugge(R.Mugge@tudelft.nl)
CurrentOpinioninPsychology2021,39:66–71
ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonObjectattachment EditedbyMelissaNorbergandDerekRucker
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.014
2352-250X/ã2020TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Introduction
Itiscommonforpeopletoreplaceproductseventhough theyarefunctioningwell[1].Researchshowsthat31%of washingmachines,66%ofvacuumcleaners,56%ofTVs and 69% of smartphones [2–4] are replaced for other reasons than beingbroken ‘beyond’ repair. Also in the fashion industry, many clothes are worn for a shorter amountoftimethantheyactuallycould[5].Furthermore, when aproduct is malfunctioning, many consumers do notconsiderrepairas avaluable option[6].
Earlyproductreplacementresultsinincreasedwaste,use ofscarceresourcesandCO2emissions,whichhavestrong negativeimpactsontheenvironment[7].Sofar,therehas been anincreasedinterest in recyclingof products, but morecanactuallybegainedbyprolongingtheproduct’s first life [8]. Consumers have a strong intention to
purchase reliable and long-lasting products, but do not seemtobehaveaccordingly[9].Whileindustrycreatesa demand for new products by introducing these on the marketregularly,itiseventuallytheconsumer determin-ingwhetheror notto replacehis/herproduct[10].This stresses theimportance of the consumers’ role in early productreplacement[11].
Thispaperprovidesscholars,industry,andpolicy,a state-of-the-art overview of the current knowledge on con-sumers’ replacement behaviour. We first explain the psychological process of product replacement. On the basisofthisprocess,wethenpresentdifferentstrategies tostimulateproductretention.Weconcludewith possi-bleavenuesfor futureresearch.
Psychological
process
of
product
replacement
Productreplacementisoftennotonlybased onrational decision-making,inwhichconsumerscomparethecosts of the replacement and the relative utility of the old versusthe new product [12]. Newtechnological devel-opments of products and evolutions in fashion and designs have demonstrated accelerating effects on replacement intervals [13]. Besides utilitarian motives, fashionable designs,changing customer needs andnew technologiessignificantlyinfluenceproductreplacement [14]. Furthermore, firms’ strategies to frequently intro-ducenext generation productstend to shorten replace-mentintervals[15].
When considering consumers’ relationships with pro-ducts,differentvalues come intoplay. Sheth et al. [16] defined five different types of values influencing con-sumerchoice.Thesevaluesareimportanttounderstand consumers’decisiontoretainortoreplaceaproduct.The firstis functionalvalue, referringto theproduct’s func-tional, utilitarian and physical product performance. Emotionalvaluerelatestotheextenttowhichthe prod-uctarousesfeelingsandaffectivestates.Epistemicvalue referstotheproductarousingcuriosity,providingnovelty or theneed for achange of pace.Social valuerefers to associationsandbelongingtoagroup.Finally,conditional valuerelatestohow specific situationsor circumstances influenceconsumerdecisions[16].
During the replacement decision, trade-offs are made between the values of the currently owned product andofapotentialnewproduct[17,18].Ontheonehand, the owned product offers specific values to the owner,
such as functional value due to its performance and features.Theproductmayalsoprovideemotionalvalue, forexample,becauseitwasagiftfromalovedone.Onthe other hand,new productscanprovide improved perfor-mance (i.e. functional value) and arouse curiosity with newfeatures(i.e.epistemicvalue),butrequireafinancial investment. Marketing strategies (e.g. advertisements) can heighten the new products’ values. During these trade-offs, some values are more salient than others, dependingonthetypeof product,context,andspecific consumer needs and desires[18,19]. While making the trade-offs, theconsumercaneitherdecidethatthe rela-tivevalueofthenewproductincomparisontotheowned product is worth the financial investment, resulting in replacement,or(s)hecandecidethattherelativevalueof the owned product is still high enough, resulting in retention [12].
Product valuesarenotstaticandcanchangeovertime. Thefunctionalvalueoftheownedproductcandecrease if the product (partly) malfunctions [20]. Traces of usage (i.e. wear and tear) can decrease the product’s aesthetics and thus its emotional value [21]. Further-more, repeated product usagetriggersfeelings of satia-tion [20], which lowers the perceived value of the owned product. This negatively affects the ‘mental bookvalue’oftheownedproduct, evenwithout actual performance or aesthetics losses [22,23]. Products and their values are mentally written off by the consumer during ownership. On the basis ofthe initial purchase price, consumers have expectations about how long a productshouldlast.Theyincorporatethisintheir trade-offs, resulting in a greater tendency to replace ‘older’ products as they have made their money worth. Con-sumers mayalsoadjusttheir productvalue preferences overtime,asaresultoftheintroductionofnewproduct features. The greater the dissimilarity of the features and appearance oftheownedproduct comparedtothe new product,the morelikelyconsumers willreplaceit [24,25].Finally, trade-in promotions have an effect on thelikelinesstoreplaceastill-functioningproduct[14], andthereforecanprovidethefinalpushinthedecision to replace.
Whileconsumersoftenreplaceproductsbeforetheendof theirfunctionallife,researchalso showsthatconsumers paradoxically haveanaversion towasteproductsandto not make full use of their utility [26]. Unnecessary wasting of products can even negatively affect brand attitudes [27]. Replacing a product that still functions can be accompanied with a feeling of guilt because consumersgenerallyfeeltheneedtojustifytheir replace-ment behaviour [2]. To justify apossible replacement, consumersmayevenshowcarelessbehaviourtowardsthe owned product,suchasproductneglectandrisky beha-viours. By acting carelessly, the value of the owned productislikelyto decrease[28].
Strategies
to
stimulate
retention
by
supporting
the
owned
product’s
values
Researchhasdistinguishedseveralstrategiestostimulate productretention.Thesestrategiestriggerthedifferent values[16]thatimpactproductreplacement,andstriveto keepthevaluesoftheownedproductashighaspossible. The different strategies can address different values concomitantly.Inthissection,thestrategiesareordered based onthevaluethey contributeto most.
Supportingemotionalvalue Supportingproductattachment
The first strategy to stimulate product retention is by supportingtheemotionalvalueoftheownedproductvia productattachment.Productattachmentcanbedefined as‘thestrengthoftheemotionalbondaconsumer experi-enceswithaproduct’[29,30].Literaturehasunderlined theroleofstrengtheningtheperson-productrelationship to prevent premature replacement of products [31,32]. Individuals become attached to products that have a special meaning to them, which gives these products an extra emotional value [33]. When individuals are attached to their products, they tendto maintainthem andtohaveahigherwillingnesstorepairthem,resulting in longerlifetimes[34,35].
Severaldeterminantsofproductattachmentexist,suchas memories,self-expression,groupaffiliationandpleasure [29,36].Memoriesandself-expressionarerecognizedas mostinfluentialforproductretentionbecausethesemay bringaboutirreplaceablepossessions[37],whichsuggests thatthespecialmeaningisnotpresentinotherproducts [29,33,37].Memoriessuggestthatproductscanserveasa reminder of aperson or pastevent. The narrativesthat suchproductsprovidecantriggerdeepemotionalbonds, andproductscanevenobtainanheirloomstatus[32,38]. Consequently,individualstendtokeepproductsthatare associated with memories for a longer period of time [29,39].Eventhoughmemoriesoftendevelop automati-cally,productscanalsoactivelyinviteindividualstoform associations by offering a context or activity to reflect, thereby stimulatingemotional value [40]. Furthermore, research demonstrated thatit ispossible to bring emo-tionalvaluetoproductsbyusinglifestoriesfor embody-ingsignificantaspectsofaperson’sidentityinthedesign [41].Peoplecanalsodevelopirreplaceableattachmentsto productsthatexpresstheiridentity.Suchself-expression can be triggered via product personalisation [43]. By personalising productsvia DIY-activities or mass custo-misation, individualsattach self-expressivevalue to the product,whichinturnstrengthenstheiremotionalbond [38,42–44].
Recentliteraturepinpointedspecificcaseswhereemotional attachmenttoproductscannegativelyinfluencethe envi-ronment. People may choose to keep an object of attachment inownershipalthoughithasbeenfunctionallyreplacedby
another[45].Suchproduct hibernation[7]canhavenegative environmental consequences because it prevents usable goodsto havea usefulsecondlifeorbe recycled.Additionally, unemotional design has recently been advocatedas a strategy to remove the emotional aspects linked to conspicuous consumption[46]. Bydoingso,consumers wouldacquire emotionaldetachmenttoproductsandinturnmore sustain-ableconsumptionpatterns.
Sustainingaestheticvalue
Products can also offer emotional value via their aes-thetics [16]. Everyday aesthetic experiences play an importantrole in consumption[47].Overtime,signs of usage or changes in fashion may decrease the owned product’s aestheticvalue, which canlead to premature replacement.Thereisaneed forproducts’aestheticsto beresilienttowardsbothwearandemergingtrends[48]. Several strategies have been proposed to sustain the aestheticvalueandtherebyencourageproductretention. Thefirstisimplementingadesignthatislesssusceptible to fashion changes, such as a classic or timeless design [49–51].Classicortimelessdesignsarevisuallysimplistic, ordered and harmonious. Because this design style adheres to people’s evolutionary desire for symmetric and simple appearances, itis generally preferred across socialgroupsandenduresthroughout time[52,53]. Aes-theticvaluecanalsobesustainedviatheuseof specific materialsinthedesign.Inmostsituations,signsofwear andteardecreaseaestheticvaluebecausepeopleperceive scratchesand usagesigns asunattractiveand less desir-able [36,54]. Past research has explored possibilities to preventthisdecreaseinaestheticvalue,forexample,by embodyingproductsinmaterialsthattendtowear grace-fullyovertime,suchas leatherorwood[33,55,56].
Supportingfunctionalvalue
Stimulatingproductcareandmaintenance
Topreventapotentiallossinthefunctionalvalueofthe ownedproduct, itis importantthat theconsumer takes goodcare of theproduct. Productcare isdefined as all activities initiated by the consumer that lead to the extensionofaproduct’slifetime[57].Productcarethus includes maintenance and repair activities. Whereas maintenancecanpreventtheproduct’sfunctionalvalue todrop,repaircansolveadefectandtherebyreturnthe reduced functional value to the original performance state.People only take careof productswhen they are motivated,havetheabilitytotakecare(intermsoftime, expertise,andmoney)andexperienceatriggertodoso [8,57,58]. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many products,oftenresultinginaprematurelossoffunctional value.Severalstrategieshavebeenproposedto encour-age people to take better care of their products, for example, by making care activities more enjoyable (enhancingmotivation),easyandtimesaving(enhancing ability),andbyremindingusersofrequiredcareactivities attherightmomentintime(providingatrigger)[57,59].
In addition, extendedproduct warranties can stimulate repairactivities[60,61].
Enablingupgradeability
Upgradeable products involve physical products that provide options to improve them in the future [62]. Upgradeability is also referred to as evolvability [63] and entails designing products that can have different phases of use and adjust to developing needs and/or technology with more advanced parts and additional functionalities. By doing so, upgradeability enables to sustaintheproduct’sfunctionalvalue andcanpersuade consumers to retain the owned product. While past research proposed upgradeability as a valuable strategy andconsumersexpresspositiveattitudestoupgradeable products[58,61], product upgradeability remains rather underdevelopedinthemarket.Product-ServiceSystems and modular design (i.e. products consisting of various interchangeable modules) could provide possibilities to facilitateupgradeability[64,65].
Supportingmultiplevaluessimultaneously
Whiletheaforementionedstrategiesaimtosupportthe emotionalor functionalvalues of products, these strat-egiescan also contribute to other values of theowned product. Values can be intertwined and together encourage the retention of this product over its replacement.
For example,self-expressionand group affiliation,both socialvalues,maystimulate theemotional bond consu-mershavetowardsaproduct[8,29,66],therebyproviding emotionalvalueas well.
Insupportingthefunctionalvalueofaproduct, upgrade-ability can address desires of novelty and increase the epistemic value by breathing new life in the owned product. It may also enhance social value by enabling theconsumertokeepupwithagroup,orhaveconditional valuebyenablinghim/hertoadapttheproducttospecific circumstances.
Productcare activitiesmay initially focus onsustaining thefunctionalvalueofaproduct.However,these activi-tiesmayalsoresultinproductattachmentbecauseofthe executed conscious and meaningful person–product interactions [53,62], and therefore can be deeply inter-twinedwith theemotionalvalue individualsattach toa product. This may be especially true for specific care activitiesand materials (e.g.oil for woodand polish for leather)[67].Whilecherishedproductsaremorelikelyto bewelltakencareof[43],executingrepairactivitiesmay alsoenhanceemotionalvaluethatresidesinthisproduct [57] if these repair activities evoke positive emotions [68].
Conclusion
and
avenues
for
future
research
Thispapersummarizesthecurrentliteratureon replace-mentbehaviour,andhighlightsthevaluetrade-offs con-sumersmakeinthedecisiontoreplace.Figure1presents anoverview of thisprocess andpotentialstrategiesthat cansupportthevaluesoftheownedproduct.An impor-tant remark is that the replacement decision involves different values, depending on the product, consumer, and context.Animportantlimitationoftheliteratureonstrategies tosupport theownedproduct’svalueis thatmostare only theoretically discussed and empirical research (e.g. longitudinal studies, surveys,experimental and/ or scenario studies) is lacking. Empirical research is needed to test their effectiveness on consumers’ replacement intentions and behaviours, and their potential for lowering the environmental impact of products. Besides, further research is needed to uncover how each strategy should be implemented (e.g. typesof upgrades) toreach thebesteffectfor a specific productand context.
Furthermore, research has distinguished strategies that mostlyfocusonsustainingfunctionalandemotionalvalues. Lessattentionhasbeenpaidonsustainingsocial,epistemic and conditional values. Focusing on the social value of products could be effective as social norms can have a powerfulandpersuasiveinfluenceonsustainableconsumer behaviouranddecisionmaking[69].Regardingepistemic value,novelty andnew featuresarousing curiosity ofthe consumerarefeaturesoftenfoundinnewproducts. How-ever,knowledgeonthevalueofupgradeabilityfor enhanc-ingepistemicvalueislacking.Regardingconditionalvalue, researchcouldfocusonwhatconditionscouldstimulatethe consumertoretainproducts.Inadditiontoproduct/service designinterventions,policymayplayaroleinestablishing such conditions. For example, it would be interestingto investigateifproductlifetimelabelsinformingconsumers abouttheexpectedlifetimeoftheproductcanincreasethe lifetime expectation,andconsequently,resultinaslower decreaseofaproduct’smentalbookvalue.
Concluding, studyingstrategies thatmake it preferable for consumers to postpone product replacement, and
Toogoodtogo?EarlyproductreplacementandstrategiestostimulateretentionvandenBerge,MagnierandMugge 69
Figure1
OWNED PRODUCT
RELATIVE VALUESNEW PRODUCT
Functional Emotional Social Epistemic ConditionalStrategies to support the new product value - Development of new technologies
- Marketing Efforts
Mental Book Value Currently Owned Product Repeated use/
Satiation Strategies to support the
owned product value - Stimulate Product Attachment
- Sustain Product Aesthetics - Stimulate Product Care / Maintenance
- Enable Upgradebility
REPLACEMENT
Trade-in Promotions
RETENTION
Expected Value and Costs New Product
TRADE-OFF
Current Opinion in Psychology
under what conditions this is most likely to happen, represent interesting avenues for future research. The necessity to reduce the environmental impact of con-sumption has become irrefutable. Studying ways to encourageconsumers to move awayfrom athrow-away societyisthereforeof greatrelevance.
Conflict
of
interest
statement
Nothingdeclared.CRediT
authorship
contribution
statement
RenskevandenBerge:Conceptualization,Investigation, Writing-originaldraft,Writing-review&editing.Lise Magnier: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing -review & editing. Ruth Mugge: Conceptualization, Investigation,Writing-review& editing.Acknowledgements
ThisresearchisfundedbytheEuropeanCommissionviatheHorizon2020 PROMPT(PrematureObsolescenceMulti-stakeholderProductTesting Programme)projectundergrantagreementno.820331.
References
and
recommended
reading
Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest
1. CoxJ,GriffithS,GiorgiS,KingG:Consumerunderstandingof productlifetimes.ResourConservRecycl2013,79:21-29.
2. WieserH,Tro¨gerN:Exploringtheinnerloopsofthecircular economy:replacement,repair,andreuseofmobilephonesin Austria.JCleanProd2018,172:3042-3055.
3. HarmerL,CooperT,FisherT,SalviaG,BarrC:Design,dirtand disposal:influencesonthemaintenanceofvacuumcleaners. JCleanProd2019,228:1176-1186.
4. HenniesL,StammingerR:Anempiricalsurveyonthe obsolescenceofappliancesinGermanhouseholds.Resour ConservRecycl2016,112:73-82.
5. ZamaniB,SandinG,PetersGM:Lifecycleassessmentof clothinglibraries:cancollaborativeconsumptionreducethe environmentalimpactoffastfashion? JCleanProd2017, 162:1368-1375.
6. Pe´rez-BelisV,Braulio-GonzaloM,JuanP,BoveaMD:Consumer attitudetowardstherepairandthesecond-handpurchaseof smallhouseholdelectricalandelectronicequipment.A Spanishcasestudy.JCleanProd2017,158:261-275.
7. BakkerC,WangF,HuismanJ,DenHollanderM:Productsthatgo round:exploringproductlifeextensionthroughdesign.J CleanProd2014,69:10-16.
8. MuggeR:Aconsumer’sperspectiveonthecirculareconomy recycled.In RoutledgeHandbookofSustainableProductDesign. EditedbyJonathanC. 2017:374-390.
9. WhalenKA:Threecircularbusinessmodelsthatextend productvalueandtheircontributiontoresourceefficiency.J CleanProd2019,226:1128-1137.
10. AntonidesG:Aneconomic-psychologicalmodelofscrapping behavior.JEconPsychol1991,12:357-379.
11. CooperT:Inadequatelife?Evidenceofconsumerattitudesto productobsolescence.JConsumPolicy2004,27:421-449.
12. GuiltinanJ:Consumerdurablesreplacementdecision-making: anoverviewandresearchagenda.MarkLett2010,21:163-174.
13. GrewalR,MehtaR,KardesFR:Thetimingofrepeatpurchases ofconsumerdurablegoods:theroleoffunctionalbasesof consumerattitudes.JMarkRes2004,41:101-115.
14. FelsA,FalkB,SchmittR:Socialmediaanalysisofperceived productobsolescence.26thCIRPDesignConference 2016:571-576.
15. BooneDS,LemonKN,StaelinR:Theimpactoffirmintroductory strategiesonconsumers’perceptionsoffutureproduct introductionsandpurchasedecisions.JProdInnovManag 2001,18:96-109.
16. ShethJN,NewmanBI,GrossBL:Whywebuywhatwebuy:a theoryofconsumptionvalues:discoveryserviceforairforce instituteoftechnology.JBusRes1991,22:159-170.
17. vanNesN,CramerJ:Influencingproductlifetimethrough productdesign.BusStrategEnviron2005,14:286-299.
18. EchegarayF:Consumers’reactionstoproductobsolescence inemergingmarkets:thecaseofBrazil.JCleanProd2016, 134:191-203.
19. BayusBL:Theconsumerdurablereplacementbuyer.JMark 1991,55:42.
20.
HoubetweenC,JoaMS,product’sSarigo¨llu¨ E:perceivedFeelingsvalueofsatiationandreplacementasamediator intentions.JCleanProd2020,258:120637.
Theauthorsdemonstratethatbothemotionalvalueandsocialvalueare relatedtoproductreplacementintention.Emotionalvaluealleviatesthe sense of satiation caused by repeated use, whereas social value enhancesthefeelingofsatiation.Inturn,satiationsignificantly contri-butestoproductreplacementintention.
21. BaxterW,AurisicchioM,ChildsP:Contaminatedinteraction: anotherbarriertocircularmaterialflows.JIndEcol2017, 21:507-516.
22. MillerCJ,WilesMA,ParkS:Tradingonup:anexaminationof factorsinfluencingthedegreeofupgrade:evidencefromcash forclunkers.JMark2019,83:151-172.
23. OkadaEM:Trade-ins,mentalaccounting,andproduct replacementdecisions.JConsumRes2001,27:433-446.
24. OkadaEM:Upgradesandnewpurchases.JMark2006, 70:92-102.
25. SohnYS,YoomKW,HanJK:Perceivedproductcreativityand mentalcontrasting:desiredfutureonconsumers’product replacementdecisions.PsycholMark2019,36:41-56.
26. BoltonLE,AlbaJW:Whenlessismore:consumeraversionto unusedutility.JConsumPsychol2012,22:369-383.
27. vanHerpenE,deHoogeIE:Whenproductattitudesgotowaste: wastingproductswithremainingutilitydecreasesconsumers’ productattitudes.JCleanProd2019,210:410-418.
28.
BellezzaAvailabilityS,AckermanofproductJM,upgradesGinoF:increases“Becarelesscavalierwiththat!”behavior towardpossessions.JMarkRes2017,54:768-784.
Inthisarticletheauthorsdemonstratethatconsumerstendtoactmore recklesslywiththeirproductswhenopportunitiesforupgradesbecome available. They statethat consumersbehave carelesslyand neglect productstojustifythereplacement.Itoffersinsightsinthepsychological processbehindconsumers’replacementbehaviour.
29. SchiffersteinHNJ,Zwartkruis-PelgrimEPH:Consumer-product attachment:measurementanddesignimplications.IntJDes 2008,2:1-13.
30. MuggeR,SchiffersteinHNJ,SchoormansJPL:Product attachmentandsatisfaction:understandingconsumers’ post-purchasebehavior.JConsumMark2010,27:271-282.
31. ChapmanJ:Designfor(Emotional)durability.DesIssues2009, 25:29-35.
32. ChapmanJ:EmotionallyDurableDesign:objects,Experiencesand Empathy.Routledge;2015.
33. MuggeR,SchoormansJPL,SchiffersteinHNJ:Designstrategies topostponeconsumers’productreplacement:thevalueofa strongperson-productrelationship.DesJ2005,8:38-48.
34. PageT:Productattachmentandreplacement:implicationsfor sustainabledesign.IntJSustainDes2014,2:265.
35. vanNesN,CramerJ:Productlifetimeoptimization:a challengingstrategytowardsmoresustainableconsumption patterns.JCleanProd2006,14:1307-1318.
36. MuggeR,SchoormansJPL,SchiffersteinHNJ:Product attachment:designstrategiestostimulatetheemotional bondingtoproducts.In ProductExperience.Editedby SchiffersteinHNJ,HekkertP.Elsevier:2008:425-440.
37. GraysonK,ShulmanD:Indexicalityandtheverificationfunction ofirreplaceablepossessions:asemioticanalysis.JConsum Res2000,27:17-30.
38. JungH,BardzellS,BlevisE,PierceJ,StoltermanE:Howdeepis yourlove:deepnarrativesofensoulmentandheirloomstatus. IntJDes2011,5:59-71.
39. Niinima¨kiK,HassiL:Emergingdesignstrategiesinsustainable productionandconsumptionoftextilesandclothing.JClean Prod2011,19:1876-1883.
40. CasaisM,MuggeR,DesmetP:Objectswithsymbolicmeaning: 16directionstoinspiredesignforwell-being.JDesRes2018, 16:247-281.
41. OrthD,ThurgoodC,vandenHovenE:Designingobjectswith meaningfulassociations.IntJDes2018,12:91-104.
42. MuggeR,SchoormansJPL,SchiffersteinbHNJ:Emotional bondingwithpersonalisedproducts.JEngDes2009, 20:467-476.
43. Niinima¨kiK,KoskinenL:Ilovethisdress,ifmakesmefeel beautiful!Empathicknowledgeinsustainabledesign.DesJ 2011,14:165-186.
44. ArmstrongCM,Niinima¨kiK,LangC:Towardsdesignrecipesto curbtheclothingcarbohydratebinge.DesJ2016,19:159-181.
45. HawsKL,NaylorRW,CoulterRA,BeardenWO:Keepingitall withoutbeingburiedalive:understandingproductretention tendency.JConsumPsychol2012,22:224-236.
46. ThornquistC:Unemotionaldesign:analternativeapproachto sustainabledesign.DesIssues2017,29:1-5.
47. PatrickVM:Everydayconsumeraesthetics.CurrOpinPsychol 2016,10:60-64.
48. HaugA:Defining‘Resilientdesign’inthecontextofconsumer products.DesJ2018,21:15-36.
49. NieuwenhuisP:Frombangertoclassic–amodelfor sustainablecarconsumption?IntJConsumStud2008, 32:648-655.
50. LobosA:Timelessnessinsustainableproductdesign.9th InternationalConferenceonDesignandEmotion2014:TheColors ofCare2014:169-176.
51. FloodHeatonR,McDonaghD:Cantimelessnessthrough prototypicalitysupportsustainability?Astrategyforproduct designers.DesJ2017,20:S110-S121.
52. SneldersD,MuggeR,HuininkM:Usingsocialdistinctionsin tasteforanalysingdesignstylesacrossproductcategories. IntJDes2014,8:23-34.
53. Veryzer RWJr,HutchinsonJW:Theinfluenceofunityand prototypicalityonaestheticresponsestonewproduct designs.JConsumRes1998,24:374-385.
54. VanWeeldenE,MuggeR,BakkerC:Pavingthewaytowards circularconsumption:exploringconsumeracceptanceof refurbishedmobilephonesintheDutchmarket.JCleanProd 2016,113:743-754.
55. BridgensB,LilleyD,ZeiligH,SearingC:Skindeep.Perceptions ofhumanandmaterialageingandopportunitiesfordesign. DesJ2019,22:2251-2255.
56.
LilleyenablingD,BridgensdesignersB,DaviestounderstandA,HolstovmaterialA:Ageingchange.(dis)gracefully:JClean Prod2019,220:417-430.
Material change isoften regarded as‘damage’ or ‘degradation’and contributes toprematureobsolescence.However,ithasthepotential tobeusedasatooltoengenderemotionalengagementwithanobject andextendproductlifetimes.Theauthorsdevelopaframeworkto under-standhow differentmaterials reacttoenvironmentalstimuli, useand interaction,andmaintenance.
57.
AckermannonproductL,care:MuggeanR,exploratorySchoormansstudyJ:Consumers’ofmotivators,perspectiveability factors,andtriggers.JCleanProd2018,183:380-391.
ThearticledrawsonFogg’sbehaviourmodeltounderstandconsumers’ motivation,abilityandtriggersrelatedtoproductcare.Theresultsshow thatwhileconsumersareoftenmotivatedandabletotakecareoftheir products,theyseemtomisstriggerstopushthemtotakecareofthemat therightmomentintime
58. SabbaghiM,CadeW,BehdadS,BisantzAM:Thecurrentstatus oftheconsumerelectronicsrepairindustryintheU.S.:a survey-basedstudy.ResourConservRecycl2017,116:137-151.
59. denHollanderMC,BakkerCA,HultinkEJ:Productdesignina circulareconomy:developmentofatypologyofkeyconcepts andterms.JIndEcol2017,21:517-525.
60. GullstrandEdbringE,LehnerM,MontO:Exploringconsumer attitudestoalternativemodelsofconsumption:motivations andbarriers.JCleanProd2016,123:5-15.
61. BrusselaersJ,BracqueneE,PeetersJ,DamsY:Economic consequencesofconsumerrepairstrategiesforelectrical householddevices.JEnterpInfManag2019http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/JEIM-12-2018-0283.Ahead-of-print.
62. MichaudC,JolyI,LlerenaD,LobasenkoV:Consumers’ willingnesstopayforsustainableandinnovativeproducts:a choiceexperimentwithupgradeableproducts.IntJSustain Dev2017,20:8-32.
63.
Haines-GaddEmotionaldurabilityM,ChapmandesignJ,Nine-ALloydP,toolMasonforproductJ,Aliakseyeulongevity.D: Sustain2018,10.
Thisstudyidentifiesninethemes(relationships,narratives,identity, ima-gination,conversations,consciousness,integrity,materiality,and evol-vability) thatsupport thedevelopment ofmore emotionallyengaging productexperiences.Itprovidesinsightstoinfluenceconsumers’ inten-tiontoretainproductslonger.
64.
KhanproductMA,lifetimeMittalS,extensionWestS,WueststrategyT:Reviewintheoncontextupgradabilityofproduct–A servicesystems.JCleanProd2018,204:1154-1168.
Theconceptofupgradeabilityhasbeensubjecttoafast-growinginterest intheresearchcommunity,butworkonupgradeableProductService Systemsisstilldominatedbytheoreticalwork.Theauthorsdemonstrate thatupgradeability inthecontextofPSShadthepotentialtoextend productlifetimes.
65. U¨ lku¨ S,DimofteCV,SchmidtGM:Consumervaluationof modularlyupgradeableproducts.ManageSci2012, 58:1761-1776.
66. KumarM,NobleCH:Beyondformandfunction:whydo consumersvalueproductdesign?JBusRes2016,69:613-620.
67. LilleyD,SmalleyG,BridgensB,WilsonGT,BalasundaramK: Cosmeticobsolescence?Userperceptionsofnewand artificiallyagedmaterials.MaterDes2016,101:355-365.
68. DesmetPMA:Facesofproductpleasure:25positiveemotions inhuman-productinteractions.IntJDes2012,6:1-29.
69. TrudelR:Sustainableconsumerbehavior.ConsumPsycholRev 2018,2:85-96.
