Table 5

Summary of research hypotheses and results

HypothesisRelationship testedKey resultConclusion
H1a/bConjoined Psychological Ownership → Positively Valenced EngagementPositive effect observed for both brands; strongest in high/high and low/low ownership configurationsSupported
H2a/bConjoined Psychological Ownership → Negatively Valenced EngagementNo significant relationship across configurations for brandsNot supported
H3aConjoined Psychological Ownership → Territoriality (focal brand) → Negatively Valenced Engagement (opposing brand)Territoriality positively influences negatively valenced engagement towards low psychological ownership objects; notably in high/low conditionPartially supported
H3bConjoined Psychological Ownership → Territoriality (focal brand) → Positively Valenced Engagement (focal brand)Territoriality positively influences positively valenced engagement towards high psychological ownership object; strongest in high/low and low/low conditionsPartially supported
H4a/bConjoined Psychological Ownership →
Apathy → Positively Valenced Engagement
Lower apathy is associated with stronger psychological ownership and engagement; particularly in low/low conditionPartially supported
Source(s): Authors’ own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal