A second life for second-hand products: the role of anthropomorphism and taboo trade-offs

Abstract

Purpose

Trade-offs that involve secular values of money and sacred human values are often seen as taboo. This paper aims to examine how consumers avoid making taboo trade-offs with anthropomorphized products, by choosing options that ensure the well-being of the humanized products, even at a financial cost to themselves.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted five experiments, across different marketplace contexts (i.e. repairing, buying and selling), to test the broad generalizability of the extent to which consumers are willing to incur a financial cost due to concern for the well-being of anthropomorphized products.

Findings

The results reveal that consumers are willing to accept financially inferior options to protect the humanness endowed upon anthropomorphized products. The effect is mediated by consumers’ concern for the treatment of the anthropomorphized product. The effect is moderated by consumers’ trait empathy level, such that those low in empathy are willing to sacrifice human value for the sake of greater financial gain.

Research limitations/implications

Future research could examine, in the context of anthropomorphized products, if there are types of human values that are less inviolable, leading consumers to be more willing to trade them off for monetary gains.

Practical implications

The findings have direct implications for second-hand markets. For potential buyers of anthropomorphized products, they should signal concern for the product; for sellers, anthropomorphizing their products can reduce haggling behavior. From a sustainability perspective, consumers may be more motivated to repair or recycle their products if it is framed as “infusing new life” into their products.

Originality/value

This work highlights a novel effect of anthropomorphism: when marketplace decisions are involved, anthropomorphizing a product can introduce a tension between secular monetary values and sacred human values. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work is the first to show that consumers are willing to incur a monetary loss to protect the humanness of anthropomorphized product, driven by their concern for the proper treatment of such humanized products.

Citation

Wan, J. and Aggarwal, P. (2024), "A second life for second-hand products: the role of anthropomorphism and taboo trade-offs", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 13, pp. 184-204. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-05-2023-0316

1. Introduction

The global market for second-hand products is rapidly growing and is projected to reach a valuation of $1.3tn (US$) over the next five years (Transparency Market Research, 2023). Unlike conventional marketplaces, the monetary worth of pre-owned products is relatively flexible, unique to each specific item being bought and sold and is determined by individual consumers rather than pre-determined by manufacturers or retailers. Individuals can also imbue such products with characteristics not intended by manufacturers. For example, sellers often use anthropomorphic phrasing such as “parting with my friend” and “in need of a good home” in their for-sale ads. Sellers may be more cautious and selective in choosing the buyers they sell to, to ensure that their humanized product is treated well in its new home. Similarly, buyers encountering such anthropomorphized descriptors may find it difficult to haggle with the seller because making a low-ball offer for a humanlike product may seem disrespectful and inappropriate. Although products are meant to be bought and sold for money, consumers may not always be out to get more “bang for their buck”. In this paper, we suggest that the tension between monetary values and human values becomes particularly salient when the marketplace exchange involves anthropomorphized products.

Anthropomorphism, or the tendency to attribute human traits to nonhuman objects, is pervasive. From detecting faces in the clouds to naming hurricanes to talking to Siri as though it were a real person, anthropomorphism is not just omnipresent, it also appears to be perfectly normal and an integral part of everyday life (Guthrie, 1993). When a product is anthropomorphized, in addition to the commercial considerations typically used to evaluate products, values traditionally endowed upon other humans are also invoked because these products are seen though a human lens (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007). Borrowing from prior work on taboo trade-offs (Tetlock, 2003), we posit that when marketplace exchanges with anthropomorphized products are involved, consumers are faced with the challenge of trading off secular values (e.g. involving financial gains/losses) against sacred human values (e.g. involving love, honor). Consequently, for anthropomorphized products, these human values are likely to be given relatively more weight in marketplace exchanges compared to products that are objectified, for which such values are less likely to be triggered. Human lives are worthy of care and protection and are not to be judged by monetary worth alone. As a result, sacred human values cued by anthropomorphizing these products can influence consumer decisions, such that consumers may even accept a monetary loss to protect these values.

The results of five studies provide evidence supporting our premise that when consumers enter a marketplace exchange involving an anthropomorphized product (e.g. buying or selling a used product), they are not solely focused on maximizing the monetary value from that exchange. Our findings suggest that concern for anthropomorphized products can result in consumers’ willingness to accept financially inferior options if such an option upholds the humanness of these products. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of this research and note the limitations of our findings along with suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Anthropomorphism: human values in products

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits and emotions to nonhuman entities (Epley et al., 2007). Knowledge about fellow humans is readily and easily accessible in people’s minds, which gets applied to nonhuman entities if they have features that mirror human traits and characteristics. For example, if the consumer sees a “smiling” car with an upturned front grille (Aggarwal and McGill, 2007) or a beverage bottle “lounging” on the beach (Puzakova et al., 2013), they perceive these products as being humanlike and evaluate them accordingly. When forming impressions and evaluating products with anthropomorphic characteristics, consumers tend to make use of human traits (e.g. warmth and competence) and apply these traits in their evaluations (Yang et al., 2020). In the eyes of consumers, these objects then become moral agents who are worthy of respect and care (Gray et al., 2007). If these products are humanlike, then they should be treated accordingly.

Indeed, anthropomorphized entities are often treated differently from their objectified counterparts. For example, anthropomorphizing a speckled banana increases acceptance of old produce by triggering reminders of the human aging process (Koo et al., 2019), anthropomorphizing a car decreases consumers’ willingness to replace it (Chandler and Schwarz, 2010) and anthropomorphizing a lightbulb increases consumers’ compliance with requests to “turn it off” and save it from “burning up” (Ahn et al., 2014). Anthropomorphism allows products to cross the boundary that separates things from people: Products that are seen as humanlike are consequently imbued with human values.

Although anthropomorphized products are treated differently than their objectified counterparts, in marketplace settings, they are still bought and sold for money. Fundamentally, products are meant to be exchanged for money. It is unclear from past literature how consumers’ treatment of anthropomorphized products would be affected when monetary concerns are introduced. Would consumers be willing to exhibit respect and care even when they face a potential monetary loss? We turn to the taboo trade-offs literature to understand how monetary values are traded off against human values.

2.2 Taboo trade-offs

Economic exchange is an integral part of marketplace settings – commodities are routinely exchanged for money. Consumers typically assess products by trading off product attributes against the price of the product, looking for deals that maximize the “bang for their buck”. While products are supposed to be valued for how well they serve consumer needs, applying such instrumentality criteria to judging people is seen as wholly inappropriate and morally wrong. The difficulty and distress associated with trading off sacred human values like love and friendship with secular values like money have been well-documented in prior research (Tetlock, 2003; Tetlock et al., 2000; Fiske and Tetlock, 1997; McGraw and Tetlock, 2005; McGraw et al., 2016). Values and principles related to human lives (e.g. human rights, love, justice, honor) tend to be perceived as inviolable and non-negotiable (Hanselmann and Tanner, 2008). In contrast, money is considered to be embodying secular and profane values (e.g. Belk, 2005); as such, trading off money against sacred values can evoke discomfort and even moral condemnations (Baron and Spranca, 1997; Tetlock et al., 2000). How much money is friendship worth? How much is a child’s life worth? How much should be charged for different parts of the human body? These are all trade-offs that people tend to actively avoid making or even thinking about (Fiske and Tetlock, 1997). People resist trading human values for money; by refusing to engage in cost-benefit reasoning with human values, they can protect themselves from inadvertently undervaluing the sacred (McGraw et al., 2016).

While prior work on taboo trade-offs has mostly focused on decisions that are about humans and human lives, there is some evidence that such effects also hold for products when these products are associated with close others. One way in which people may address this issue is by putting a much higher monetary value on products associated with sacredness. For example, consumers regard selling a pen gifted from a close friend or a respected mentor as being more inappropriate than selling the exact same pen purchased from an acquaintance (McGraw and Tetlock, 2005). A mundane pen gains special meaning when it is gifted from a close other and becomes less of a commodity. The love and respect one has for the relational partner gets transferred to the gift received from them. Consequently, if consumers decide to sell this pen, they demand a higher price in exchange compared to selling an identical product that is not associated with close others (McGraw and Tetlock, 2005). In addition to the transfer of sacred values from close others to products associated with them, there are certain consumption contexts where human values may get evoked. Love, for example, is a sacred human value. When consumers are making decisions related to marriages (e.g. choosing engagement rings) and deaths (e.g. choosing cremation containers), they are willing to spend more to avoid having to trade-off their love for close others with money (McGraw et al., 2016). Consumers avoid searching for lower-priced alternatives and better deals because even thinking about costs versus benefits in such contexts can be uncomfortable – after all, it is “taboo” to put a price on sacred values like love.

To date, prior research has not documented any situation where the tension between human values and monetary values are elicited with mundane everyday products that are unrelated to close others or unrelated to the self. We posit that, even if a product is not associated with close others or any actual human, it may still be imbued with humanness through anthropomorphism such that consideration for human values may be elicited on top of the usual consideration of secular monetary values. As such, it may also feel unacceptable to explicitly make trade-offs between the human values of these anthropomorphized products and monetary gains. Furthermore, in contrast with past research demonstrating that taboo trade-offs with products that are associated with close others result in demand for higher monetary compensation, we posit that taboo trade-offs involving anthropomorphized products can lead to acceptance of financially inferior offers if that offer ensures that the anthropomorphized product is treated properly.

2.3 Taboo trade-offs and anthropomorphized products

In this research, we propose that imbuing an inanimate product with humanness grants it basic human rights and is sufficient to trigger human value concern – even if that product is not an actual human and does not have any special meaning through association with specific people whom the consumer cares about. When a product gets a human name, a body or a face, or when it “speaks” in first-person language, the product becomes distinct and qualitatively different from its no-name, non-human counterpart. In other words, anthropomorphism is a unique process that endows personhood to the product.

In a typical market exchange, prices are used as the clearest signal of the value of products. Although in many retail settings prices are fixed, there are contexts where the suggested price for a product is flexible. A common context where product prices are not fixed is the second-hand market. In such a context, the tension between economic values and human values will become particularly salient when buying or selling an anthropomorphized product because the relative flexibility of prices makes trade-off between secular economic and sacred human values particularly salient and hard to ignore. For example, when buying a used product that is anthropomorphized, people may find it hard to haggle on its price and offer a low price for this “person” for fear of being disrespectful to the humanized entity. Similarly, when thinking of selling a product in a used market, rather than focusing solely on getting the maximum price for the product, people may also be concerned about how well the new owner will treat this humanized product. If the buyer is likely to “disembowel” (i.e. take apart) the product, then a seller may be reluctant to go through with the sale, even if the buyer offers more money. This seller may be more likely to accept a lower monetary offer from a buyer who will preserve the integrity of its “humanness”.

More generally, when consumers engage in any sort of marketplace exchange (i.e. buying, replacing, selling) involving an anthropomorphized product, and when a monetary versus sacred value trade-off is made salient, consumers would be more willing to forgo monetary gains when they come at the cost of the product’s proper treatment. We posit that consumers are willing to incur financial costs to protect the anthropomorphized product, and this is because they are more concerned about the well-being of anthropomorphized products compared with their objectified counterparts (see Figure 1). As mentioned previously, prior research has shown that consumers are capable of experiencing compassion for anthropomorphized objects (e.g. Ahn et al., 2014; Chandler and Schwarz, 2010). Such entities are worthy of respect and care, similar to real humans (Gray et al., 2007). If human lives and values should not be traded for money (Baron and Spranca, 1997; Tetlock et al., 2000), then the same logic can extend to humanized products. Consumers care about how such products should be treated, and they will be more likely to choose options that protect such products, even at a financial cost to themselves. Stated more formally:

H1a.

When engaging with anthropomorphized (vs objectified) products, consumers will be more likely to forgo financial gains to ensure the proper treatment of the product.

H1b.

The effect described in H1a is mediated by consumers’ concern, such that the willingness to forgo financial gains is caused by consumers’ concern for the treatment of the anthropomorphized product.

We recognize that there are boundary conditions to this proposed effect. While they are not the majority, there are some consumers who care little for the well-being of their fellow humans. Such consumers are low in empathy – a dispositional trait that induces concern for other people and their experiences (Davis, 1983). Those who are low in empathy disregard the feelings of others, are uncaring toward others’ mistreatment (Davis, 2016) and are more readily able to objectify and dehumanize others (Haslam, 2006). As such, we predict that consumers who experience little empathy toward other human beings will also experience little empathy toward humanized products. Consequently, we suggest that the effect predicted in H1a and H1b will be moderated by dispositional empathy. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2.

The effects described in H1a and H1b will be moderated by consumers’ dispositional empathy, such that the willingness to incur financial costs to protect anthropomorphized products would be attenuated by low trait empathy.

2.4 The present research

We conduct five studies to examine our proposed hypotheses. The core structure is consistent across all studies. First, participants are exposed to a product that is framed as an anthropomorphized or objectified entity, and then they are presented with a marketplace exchange context in which pricing is perceived to be flexible. Participants are then asked to make a decision: one option is superior on the participants’ expected monetary outcome (e.g. a higher price offered to them if they were selling the product; a lower price if they were to buy the product), while the other option is more likely to uphold the integrity of the product as dictated by human values (e.g. using the product the way it was meant to be used rather than being taken apart and sold for its component parts). The option that preserves human values is designed to be the one that is financially unfavorable.

Across five studies, we use a variety of products and contexts to conceptually replicate our effect in multiple ways and ensure the generalizability of our findings. As long as a monetary trade-off is made salient, we posit that consumers will take into consideration the proper treatment of the anthropomorphized product, irrespective of the pre-existing relationship they have with the product (i.e. from not yet owned to ready to dispose). That is, the effect should occur regardless of whether consumers are acquiring, retaining or disposing of anthropomorphized products. All products used in our studies are goods that are commonly seen in second-hand markets (i.e. furniture, wristwatches, cars and computers).

We test the effect across all three aforementioned contexts. We start by examining a context where consumers do not yet own the product and where they can negotiate over the price of the product (Study 1). We then investigate a context where consumers own the product and have the option of spending money to retain the product versus disposing of it (Study 2). Finally, we turn to a context where consumers are ready to dispose of the product and have the option of earning more or less money depending on who they sell the product to (Study 3). The mediational role of consumers’ concern for the treatment of the anthropomorphized product is tested across multiple studies (Studies 2, 3, 4 and 5). Staying with the disposal context in Studies 4 and 5, we rule out alternative explanations and explore boundary effects. In Study 4, we rule out an alternative explanation of self-identity and confirm that concern for the product, rather than consumers’ identification with the product, drives the effect. In Study 5, we examine whether the effect of anthropomorphism on willingness to accept monetary losses would be attenuated among consumers who have little regard for other people (i.e. those with low trait empathy). For all studies, the experimental stimuli and exclusion criteria are described in detail in the Web Appendix.

3. Study 1: pricing a “Person”

Study 1 tests H1a and uses the context of buying a product, examining if anthropomorphism reduces consumers’ inclination to price negotiate. Haggling for a product is an obvious indicator that people think the higher price demanded by the seller is not worth the benefits offered by the product; instead, the product might become worthwhile if the price were to be lowered. This is clearly the rational, utility-driven exchange valuation typically used by most people when they are partaking in a commercial transaction, especially in second-hand markets when negotiating is possible or even expected. We surmise that although price negotiation is acceptable in second-hand marketplace exchanges, when it comes to people, assessing their worth purely by monetary value is akin to treating people as mere objects. As a result, anthropomorphizing a product may reduce the likelihood of potential buyers haggling and making low offers far below the asking price.

3.1 Method

Consumers were intercepted by a researcher in a shopping center in a European city. One hundred and fifty-seven participants (53% female; average age = 29.23) agreed to participate in the study. They were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: anthropomorphized sofa or objectified sofa. Because of the flow of expatriates and international students through the city, Facebook Marketplace is commonly used for divesting used products. Participants were shown a printed screenshot of a Facebook Marketplace post in which a used sofa was listed for sale. The post contained a photo of the sofa and a text description of the sofa above it.

In the anthropomorphized condition, a cartoon face was added to the picture of the sofa. A speech bubble emerged from the “face” of the sofa, with the text, “Hi! I’m Willy the sofa” (manipulation adapted from Aggarwal and McGill, 2007). The description of the sofa included he/him pronouns (e.g. “He has a light blue, microfiber cover”). In the objectified condition, the photo of the product was not altered, and the sofa was referred to as an “it” (e.g. “It has a light blue, microfiber cover”). In both cases, the asking price of the sofa was €100. Participants were asked how likely it was that they would be willing to pay the asking price and how likely it was that they would negotiate on the price of the sofa (1 = extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely). They also stated their offering price in Euros.

3.2 Results

Seven participants were removed for not following instructions, leaving a total of 150 participants for subsequent analyses (see Appendix A). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that participants who saw the anthropomorphized sofa were significantly less willing to negotiate on the price of the sofa than those in the objectified sofa condition (M_anthro = 4.36, SD = 1.95; M_object = 5.53, SD = 1.55; F(1, 148) = 16.39, p < 0.001). Furthermore, these participants also expressed significantly greater willingness to pay the asking price (M_anthro = 5.19, SD = 1.40; M_object = 4.43, SD = 1.75; F(1, 148) = 8.70, p = 0.004). Finally, in terms of actual offer prices in Euros, participants who saw the anthropomorphized sofa (M = 80.71, SD = 16.51) offered a significantly higher price on average than those who saw the objectified sofa (M = 73.13, SD = 14.15; F(1, 148) = 9.04, p = 0.003).

3.3 Discussion

Our results show that when products are anthropomorphized, consumers are willing to pay a price that is closer to the asking price rather than trying to get the best “bang for their buck”, confirming H1a. Many people feel that explicitly putting a price on a human life is taboo and wrong (Tetlock et al., 2000). Although in this context, a price is already placed on the product, as is normal in marketplace contexts, continuing to barter – especially pushing for a lower price – on the value of the anthropomorphized product may elicit discomfort. We posit that consumers are more concerned about the proper treatment of the anthropomorphized product, compared with objectified products, and as a result, consumers are willing to incur more of a financial loss to ensure the product is treated well. We directly test this mediating role of concern for proper treatment of the anthropomorphized product in subsequent studies. Furthermore, to explore the broader generalizability of this effect, we examine our hypotheses in different marketplace contexts.

4. Study 2: replacing a “Person”

Study 2 tests H1a in a new marketplace context: product replacement. Consumers are asked to consider replacing versus repairing an old product that has stopped working. This context is similar to the studies of Chandler and Schwarz (2010), in which they find that consumers are reluctant to replace their old, anthropomorphized car. However, in those studies, there was no mention of any cost for replacing or potentially upkeeping the original car – and as such, there were no overt trade-offs being made with any monetary costs. In Study 2, we investigate a situation where replacement would be the financially more prudent choice because we introduce an out-of-pocket cost for repairing and keeping the old product, which is pitted against a replacement option that involves no financial cost. This context allows us to more directly test how consumers make trade-offs between monetary values and human values. Furthermore, in this study, we test the mediating role of consumers’ concern for the treatment of the anthropomorphized product (H1b). When consumers anthropomorphize their old product, the activation of human value considerations would mean that the concern for the well-being of this humanized product would become more salient. In such a case, when this product is unable to perform well (i.e. due to some malfunction), discarding or replacing this anthropomorphized entity with a new option would feel disrespectful and inconsiderate. Instead, returning this product back to its normal self by helping it recover (i.e. repairing it) would seem like the right thing to do. Consequently, we propose that consumers would prefer repairing over replacing a product that is anthropomorphized, even if repairing is financially more costly. On the other hand, when the product is a mere object rather than an anthropomorphized entity, replacing it would seem like the more rational way to behave.

4.1 Method

Five hundred and one American participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; 53% female, average age = 40.37), an online panel. All participants imagined owning a wristwatch of any brand or style. Half of them were instructed to write about the watch coming to life – what kind of person it would be, what personality traits it would have, and what kind of attitudes or interests it may have (anthropomorphism manipulation adapted from Aggarwal and McGill, 2012). The other half were instructed to write about the watch as a mechanical object (objectified condition) – what kind of material it would be made of, what kind of features it would have, its specifications and dimensions.

After the writing task, participants were told that the watch developed a mechanical issue and had stopped working. The watch was under a lifetime warranty and the manufacturer offered two options: trade in the old watch for a brand-new watch (different model, but almost identical in features and style) at no additional cost. Alternatively, they could send the old watch to be repaired with no cost for labor but would need to pay $5.99 for the special order of a mechanical part. Participants indicated the option they preferred (1 = prefer to replace, 7 = prefer to repair).

As a measure of concern for the well-being of the watch, participants indicated their agreement with two statements: “I care about the treatment of my watch” and “It doesn’t really matter to me what happens to my current watch” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The second item was reverse coded, and the two items were averaged to form a single score (r = 0.81). While consumers may express concern for a product that they own and wear close to their body even if it is objectified, we posit that anthropomorphizing the watch will further increase consumers’ concern for its treatment and will mediate the relationship between anthropomorphism and desire to repair (rather than replace) the watch.

As a check of the effectiveness of the anthropomorphism manipulation, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the watch seemed to have free will, intentions, feelings and seemed like a real person (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). All four items were averaged together to form a single score of anthropomorphism (alpha = 0.98).

4.2 Results

Twenty-nine participants were removed for not following instructions and/or not paying attention, leaving a total of 472 participants in the subsequent analyses (see Web Appendix B). The results of the manipulation check indicated that, indeed, those in the anthropomorphized condition perceived their watch as being more humanlike and possessing human qualities (M = 4.72, SD = 1.72) than those in the objectified condition (M = 2.14, SD = 1.43; F(1, 470) = 314.46, p < 0.001).

Next, we examined which option participants preferred: repair or replace. The results of a one-way ANOVA revealed that participants expressed a higher relative preference to repair the watch when it was anthropomorphized (M = 5.07, SD = 2.31) than when it was objectified [M = 4.54, SD = 2.48; F(1, 470) = 5.68, p = 0.018]. We then examined the effect of anthropomorphism on concern for the watch. A one-way ANOVA showed that participants exhibited more concern for the anthropomorphized watch (M = 5.41, SD = 1.48) than its objectified counterpart (M = 5.01, SD = 1.65; F(1, 470) = 7.90, p = 0.005). Using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2017), a mediation analysis revealed that concern for the current watch had a significant effect on preference for repairing the watch (b = 1.07, t = 21.16, p < 0.001) and the inclusion of this variable rendered the effect of anthropomorphism non-significant (b = 0.09, t = 0.58, p = 0.56). Bootstrap analysis with 10,000 samples indicated that, indeed, concern for the watch mediates the relationship between anthropomorphism and preference to repair (b = 0.43, 95% CI: [0.12, 0.73]).

4.3 Discussion

Study 2 results suggest that consumers are more likely to accept a financial loss if that allows them to ensure that the product is treated properly, providing support for H1a and H1b. Similar to past research (e.g. Chandler and Schwarz, 2010), we also find that consumers are less willing to replace anthropomorphized products. However, we go beyond those findings by demonstrating that replacement is preferred even when it is more costly than the alternative. In fact, the replacement option would have given consumers an opportunity to obtain a brand-new product while the repair option only fixes an old product – and that, too, at a financial cost to them. In this way, we directly test our proposition relating to taboo trade-offs in the context of anthropomorphized products and find that consumers tend to decide in favor of upholding human values even at a personal monetary cost. Humanized products should not be discarded and replaced with another – instead, consumers seem to be willing to spend money to ensure that their old product could be brought “back to life”. Our results also point to a novel mediator: preference for repairing the old watch was mediated by the concern for the well-being of the watch.

We have thus far examined contexts in which consumers decided to obtain (Study 1) or keep (Study 2) a product. In subsequent studies, we investigate contexts in which the consumer has decided to sever their relationship with the product and is looking to dispose of the product. Rationally speaking, consumers should be more concerned with receiving a higher payment in such situations because they have already decided to get rid of their product. It should not matter to them how the product is treated by its new owner. Yet, we expect that consumers would still care about the subsequent treatment of the humanized product, and are willing to choose the option that treats the product better, even if it means receiving less money.

5. Study 3: dismembering a “Person”

Study 3 tests the robustness of both H1a and H1b in different context: selling a previously owned product. Prior research has noted that human body parts should not be exchanged for money – even thinking about such a transaction makes people feel uncomfortable because it violates the sacredness of the human body (Tetlock et al., 2000). Consequently, this study examines if consumers would prefer to protect a humanized product by refusing to sell it to a buyer who proposes to use it for its “body parts”, even if this option promises greater monetary advantage.

5.1 Method

One hundred and fifty-five American participants were recruited from MTurk (50% female; average age = 37.15). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: anthropomorphized car or objectified car. All participants imagined owning an old car that they no longer drove. In the anthropomorphism condition, the car had a name (Lexi) and was described with she/her pronouns. A front image of the car was shown to highlight the “face” formed by the headlights and the grill (adapted from Aggarwal and McGill, 2007). Similar to the first study, participants were asked to write about what kind of person “she” would be and rated “her” on a set of personality traits (e.g. how friendly and thoughtful she was; adapted from Chandler and Schwarz, 2010). In the objectified condition, the car was referred to by its model name and number. An image of the car at a slight angle was shown, so that the front of the car (the “face”) was no longer as prominent. Participants wrote about the car’s features and rated the car on a set of functional attributes (e.g. how quiet and reliable it was; see Web Appendix C).

Participants imagined posting an online ad to sell the car. The car was described as a 2004 Lexus ES, with more than 210,000 miles on the odometer, and participants were told that they had listed the car for $2,500 or best offer. In the anthropomorphized condition, the ad was titled, “Find Lexi a home!” In the objectified condition, the ad was titled, “Used Lexus for sale!” Participants were then told that they had received offers from two potential buyers: one offer was from an end user (a college student) who wanted to use the car as is; the other offer was from an owner of a salvage yard who was looking to buy a car to use for parts. The student offered $2,435 for the car and the salvage yard owner offered $2,445; both buyers were willing to pick up the car and pay cash. In sum, the salvage yard owner offered a slightly higher buying price than the college student, but the car would be taken apart. Participants were asked to indicate which buyer they would prefer to sell to (1 = student, 7 = salvage yard owner).

As a measure of concern for the well-being of the car, we asked participants to indicate their agreement with two statements similar to the previous study: “I would care about how my Lexus was treated by the buyer” and “It doesn’t really matter to me what happens to my Lexus after I sell it” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The second item was reverse coded, and the two items were averaged to form a single score (r = 0.78). Although rationally speaking, it should not matter what happens to the product after it is sold to someone else, we expected that consumers would feel more concern for the well-being of the humanized car than for the objectified car, even after it was sold and consequently would prefer to sell it to the end user.

5.2 Results

Fourteen participants were removed for not following instructions and/or not paying attention, leaving a total of 141 participants for the subsequent analyses (see Web Appendix C). A one-way ANOVA revealed that participants in the anthropomorphized condition were significantly less willing to sell their car to the salvage yard owner than those in the objectified condition (M_anthro = 1.57, SD = 1.33; M_object = 2.15, SD = 1.93; F(1, 139) = 4.26, p = 0.04). Furthermore, participants were likely to care more about what happened to the car after they sold it when the car was anthropomorphized (M = 5.34, SD = 1.56) compared to when it was objectified (M = 4.40, SD = 1.75; F(1, 139) = 11.22, p = 0.001). Using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2017), mediation analyses revealed that concern for the car had a significant effect on willingness to sell to the lower-paying buyer (i.e. the student; b = −0.59, t = −8.55, p < 0.001) and the inclusion of this variable rendered the effect of anthropomorphism non-significant (b = −0.03, t = −0.11, p = 0.91). Bootstrap analysis with 10,000 samples indicated that, indeed, concern for the treatment of the car mediates the relationship between anthropomorphism and the willingness to sell to the lower-paying buyer (b = −0.56, 95% CI: [−1.01, −0.22]).

5.3 Discussion

These results suggest that when a product is anthropomorphized, people are strongly opposed to it being “dismembered” and used for its parts compared to when the same product is viewed as an objectified commodity even if it means that one must forgo some financial gain for it, providing support for H1a. The results of the mediation analysis provide support for the underlying process by showing that this aversion to breaking up the product is driven by concern for the treatment of the humanized entity, supporting H1b.

Although consumers have already decided to end their relationship with their product, they continue to feel an obligation to treat the anthropomorphized product properly, to the extent that they are willing to give up financial gains to prevent the product from being mistreated. We seek to replicate this finding in the next study and rule out an alternative explanation.

6. Study 4: dismembering a person, revisited

Study 4 tests H1a and H1b in a selling context again, but with a different anthropomorphism manipulation for purposes of generalizability, as well as a more extended measure of the mediator. This study also addresses several issues from previous studies. Both Studies 2 and 3 use disposal contexts and past research has shown that consumers’ disposal decisions are influenced by the degree to which they identify with products. Trudel et al. (2016) found that, when products are linked to consumers’ identities, consumers are reluctant to trash such products because they feel as if they are trashing themselves. It is possible that consumers identify more strongly with anthropomorphized products than their objectified counterparts. After all, the human schema is more accessible and understandable in consumers’ minds than non-humans (Epley et al., 2007). As such, in both Studies 2 and 3, consumers may feel that the financially superior options would involve “trashing themselves”. Consumers are willing to dispose of identity-linked products by recycling them as an alternative to simply throwing them out (Trudel et al., 2016). In this study, we attempt to rule out the identity explanation by introducing two disposal options that both involve recycling. However, the financially superior option still involves “dismembering” the anthropomorphized product whereas the financially inferior option does not. If concern for the humanized product drives the effect, rather than identity, then we would still expect to find a preference for the financially inferior option which keeps the anthropomorphized product intact.

It is also worth noting that participants in Study 3 may have preferred selling to the student because they wanted to help someone who is likely to be needy, rather than a salvage yard owner who runs a for-profit company, and they perceived the price difference between the two offers to be negligible in their decision to be charitable to the student. While this cannot explain the observed difference in response between the anthropomorphized and objectified conditions or for the observed differences in their concern for the treatment of the product, in this study, we address any potential issue related to concern for the needy student by ensuring that the buyers are matched (e.g. both buyers are for-profit business owners), such that preference for one buyer or the other is not attributable to any buyer characteristics or the sellers’ desire to be charitable.

6.1 Method

Two hundred American participants were recruited from Prolific (43% female; average age = 35.53), an online panel. All participants were shown an image of a white, solid wood dresser. Participants were randomly assigned to the anthropomorphism or objectified condition. In the anthropomorphism condition, the dresser had two top drawers that looked as if they were “eyes”. The dresser was named Mila, and participants completed a similar writing task as in Study 2, whereby they wrote about the dresser as if it came to life and what its personality would be like (task adapted from Aggarwal and McGill, 2012). In the objectified condition, the dresser was photo-edited to have only one top drawer (i.e. no “eyes”), and the model name of the dresser was “MLN”. Similar to the writing task in Study 2, participants in the objectified condition wrote about the dresser as an object and described its features.

Participants were then told that they had owned the dresser for several years, but it was old and worn out now. Because the dresser was made of real solid wood, several second-hand furniture shop owners expressed interest in acquiring the dresser. The first buyer was someone who refurbished old furniture by fixing and polishing them up before selling them. He offered $175 for the dresser. The second buyer was someone who repurposed wood from old furniture by taking them apart and reusing the wood for new products. This buyer offered $185. In both cases, the dresser would be recycled and not simply trashed. Participants were asked to indicate who they preferred to sell to (1 = Buyer 1, 7 = Buyer 2).

As a measure of concern for the treatment of the product, we built upon the items from the previous two studies and we asked participants to indicate the extent to which they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with the following statements: “It matters what happens to my dresser after I sell it”, “It’s more important to me that I sell my dresser to the right person rather than earning more money”, “It feels wrong for my dresser to be used/sold for parts”, “I'd prefer my dresser to remain whole, rather than be taken apart, even after I sell it”, “I would rather make sure that my dresser ‘lives on’ even if means I make less money”. These five items were averaged to form a combined “concern” score (alpha = 0.96).

As a measure of identity connection between the participant and the product, we asked participants to indicate the extent to which they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with the following statements (items adapted from Escalas and Bettman, 2005 and Trudel et al., 2016): “This dresser reflects who I am”, “I identify with the dresser”, “I feel a personal connection with the dresser”, “I consider the dresser to be ‘me’”, “The dresser suits me well”, “I use this dresser to communicate who I am to other people” and “I think this dresser helps me become the person I want to be”. These seven items were average to form a combined “identity” score (alpha = 0.94).

As a check of the effectiveness of the anthropomorphism manipulation, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the dresser seemed to have feelings, personality, free will, intentions, like a person and seems alive (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). All six items were averaged together to form a single score of anthropomorphism (alpha = 0.96).

6.2 Results

Four participants were removed for not paying attention, leaving a total of 196 participants for the subsequent analyses (see Web Appendix D). The results of the manipulation check indicated that, indeed, those in the anthropomorphized condition perceived the dresser as being more humanlike and possessing human qualities (M = 2.37, SD = 1.54) than those in the objectified condition [M = 1.70, SD = 1.11; F(1, 194) = 11.77, p < 0.001].

A one-way ANOVA revealed that participants in the anthropomorphized condition were significantly less willing to sell to the buyer offering the higher price than those in the objectified condition (M_anthro = 4.67, SD = 2.37; M_object = 5.61, SD = 1.93; F(1, 194) = 9.29, p = 0.003). Furthermore, participants were likely to exhibit more concern for the dresser after they sold it when the dresser was anthropomorphized (M = 3.55, SD = 1.97) compared to when it was objectified [M = 2.77, SD = 1.55; F(1, 194) = 9.45, p = 0.002]. In contrast, participants did not differ in their level of identity connection with the dresser between the two conditions [M_anthro = 2.80, SD = 1.42; M_object = 2.57, SD = 1.31; F(1, 194) = 1.40, p = 0.24]; in other words, anthropomorphizing the dresser did not make participants feel as if they identified more with the dresser.

Because only concern for the product, and not identification with the product, differed between the two conditions, we proceeded to conduct a mediation analysis with concern. Using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2017), mediation analysis revealed that concern for the dresser had a significant effect on willingness to sell to the lower-paying buyer (b = −0.97, t = −18.09, p < 0.001) and the inclusion of this variable rendered the effect of anthropomorphism non-significant (b = −0.19, t = −0.97, p = 0.33). Bootstrap analysis with 10,000 samples indicated that, indeed, concern for the treatment of the dresser mediates the relationship between anthropomorphism and the willingness to sell to the lower-paying buyer (b = −0.76, 95% CI: [−1.25, −0.27]).

6.3 Discussion

The results of Study 4 replicate the findings of our previous studies, demonstrating that even when consumers have decided to dispose of the product, they still care for the subsequent treatment of the anthropomorphized product. Although both buyers offer to recycle and not trash the product (i.e. the dresser is refinished or the dresser is taken apart and reused), consumers were willing to forgo a financial gain to keep the anthropomorphized dresser intact and not “dismembered”. This finding lends further support for H1a. The results of this study also rule out the possibility that identification with anthropomorphized products drives the observed effect. In fact, consumers do not identify more closely with anthropomorphized products, but they do exhibit more concern for the treatment of such products, which further supports H1b.

7. Study 5: unconcerned consumers

We test all of the hypotheses (H1a, H1b and H2) in Study 5. In this study, we examine the boundary condition of the anthropomorphism effect observed in our first four studies by exploring if the anthropomorphism effect would be attenuated if the participants are less able to exhibit the concern that drives the effect we observed in previous studies. As a result, we decided to examine a crucial individual difference trait that influences consumers’ inherent desire to care for other human beings: empathy.

Empathy is a dispositional trait that induces concern and appreciation for other people and their experiences, and it plays a crucial role in social interactions (Davis, 1983). Consumers vary in the degree to which they experience empathic concern for their fellow humans. People high in trait empathy are more attuned to other people’s needs (Batson et al., 1997) and they are able to share and understand other people’s feelings and thoughts (Decety and Jackson, 2004). Conversely, people low in empathy tend to disregard the feelings of others, and in extreme cases, the absence of empathy may even lead to psychological dysfunction, such as antisocial personality disorders (Davis, 2016). We use the well-validated empathic concern subscale from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) – measuring respondents’ feelings of warmth, compassion and concern for others – to assess consumers’ chronic level of empathy. We predict that the effect we documented in the previous studies will be attenuated among consumers with low empathy. Such individuals already hold little regard and concern for other humans – they would be unlikely to sacrifice monetary gain simply to preserve the integrity of a humanized product.

7.1 Method

Study 5 was preregistered at AsPredicted (https://aspredicted.org/5pp8h.pdf). The study used a 2 (product: anthropomorphized vs objectified) × empathy (continuous) between-subjects design, with empathy as a measured trait. Three hundred and ninety-nine American participants (43% female; average age = 41.54) were recruited from MTurk and randomly assigned to one of the two conditions.

All participants were instructed to imagine that they had been shopping for a computer a while back when they came across an ad for a Lenovo desktop computer. The ad depicted a full desktop computer set (monitor, tower, keyboard and mouse), with text displayed on the monitor and a text description of the computer beside the image. In the anthropomorphized product condition, the monitor in the ad displayed a message in first-person language: “Hi, I’m Lenovo – let me help you with all your computing needs!” The text describing the computer was also written in first-person language (e.g. “I come equipped with Windows 10 and I’m ready to start working”). Participants then imagined that they had purchased the computer and had named the computer “Lenny” during the set-up process. Similar to the previous study, they also wrote about “Lenny” as if it had come to life as a person. In the objectified product condition, the message displayed in the monitor read, “This is a Lenovo M91P. Let it help you with all your computing needs!” The description of the computer was also written in third-person language (e.g. “This model M91P comes equipped with Windows 10 and it will work right out of the box”). During the set-up process, participants in the objectified condition imagined that they typed “LM91P” as the label (instead of a name) for the computer. They then wrote about the computer’s features and functions. Subsequently, all participants were instructed to imagine that after some time they no longer used the computer, so they posted an online ad to sell it. In the anthropomorphized condition, the ad read, “Lenny needs a new home! $290 or best offer”. In the objectified condition, the ad read, “Lenovo computer for sale! $290 or best offer”.

All participants were then told that they received offers from two different local business owners: Alex, who needed an extra computer for his office, offered $255, and Sam, who extracted component parts from computers to refurbish other computers, offered $265. Participants were asked to indicate the buyer they would prefer to sell to (1 = prefer to sell to Alex, 7 = prefer to sell to Sam).

As a measure of mediation, we used the same five items from Study 4 and asked participants to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement (e.g. “It matters what happens to my computer after I sell it”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The five items were averaged to form a combined “concern” score (alpha = 0.97). As a check of the anthropomorphism manipulation, we asked the participants to indicate the extent to which they thought the computer had feelings, personality, free will, intentions, seemed like a person and seemed to be alive (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). These six items were averaged to form a single anthropomorphism score (alpha = 0.98).

In an ostensibly separate personality study, participants were shown a list of personality-related descriptions and were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each description. Because some of the previous questions involved care and compassion for another entity, we first included some filler personality items (all related to introversion/extraversion, e.g. “I like to mix socially with people”) to distract participants from making a connection between the mediating items that assessed concern for anthropomorphized entities and their individual score on empathy items. Seven trait empathy items followed the four filler questions, and participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with descriptions such as, “Sometimes I don’t feel sorry for other people when they are having problems” and “I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = agree; Empathic Concern scale adapted from Davis, 1980). As per the scale instructions, three of the seven items were reverse-coded. The seven items were averaged to form a single trait empathy score, which was mean-centered for regression analysis (α = 0.92).

7.2 Results

Fourteen participants were removed for not following instructions and/or not paying attention, leaving a total of 385 participants for the subsequent analyses. See Web Appendix E for stimuli and additional analyses. Similar to the previous study, a one-way ANOVA revealed that participants in the anthropomorphized condition indeed perceived the computer as more humanlike compared with those in the objectified condition [M_anthro = 3.28, SD = 1.94; M_object = 1.90, SD = 1.41, F(1, 383) = 64.06, p < 0.001].

A moderated mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS Model 8 (Hayes, 2017) with buyer preference as the dependent variable. Anthropomorphism, empathy (mean-centered) and their interaction were included in the model as independent variables; concern was included as the mediator (see Figure 2). The first path of the model tested the interaction of anthropomorphism and empathy on concern for the product. There was no main effect of either anthropomorphism or empathy (p’s > 0.20), but more importantly, the interaction had a significant effect on concern (b = 0.43, p = 0.04), such that those low in empathy did not show concern for the anthropomorphized computer. The second path of the model tested the mediating role of concern. The analysis revealed a significant effect of concern on buyer preference (b = −0.93, p < 0.001). The inclusion of concern as a mediator rendered the effects of anthropomorphism (b = 0.16, p = 0.782), empathy (b = −0.13, p = 0.20) and their interaction (b = −0.10, p = 0.49) insignificant. A bootstrapping analysis with 10,000 resamples indicated an indirect pathway through concern (index of moderated mediation = −0.40, 95% CI: [−0.78, −0.02]). These results suggest that the effect of anthropomorphism on buyer preference is mediated by concern for the treatment of the product and moderated by trait empathy.

7.3 Discussion

Study 5 results show that trait empathy moderates the effect of anthropomorphism on willingness to accept a lower monetary offer, with the effect being attenuated amongst those low in empathy. Participants who expressed low empathic concern for the well-being of others were also less concerned about the future treatment of the anthropomorphized product, especially if it meant that expressing concern would result in a loss of money, and hence preferred the buyer who offered a higher price even if that involved dismembering the humanized product.

8. General discussion

Across five studies, this research shows that consumers care about protecting the core human values that are endowed upon anthropomorphized products, even at a monetary loss to themselves. Furthermore, we consistently find that this effect of accepting a monetary cost to protect the integrity of human values for anthropomorphized products is driven by the concern that consumers have for these products. These effects were observed in a variety of different contexts involving decisions about product purchase, product replacement and product sale. We also rule out the alternative explanation that anthropomorphism increases consumers’ identity connection with products. The results of our final study show that chronic empathy moderates the effect, such that people with lower levels of empathy toward other humans also show less concern for anthropomorphized products.

8.1 Theoretical contributions

This research contributes to the growing field of anthropomorphism research by demonstrating that when products are anthropomorphized, they are seen by consumers as being fundamentally different from mere objects, which influences consumers’ monetary decisions. Humanized products imbue on consumers a moral obligation to care about how these products are treated, show concern for their well-being and protect the integrity of their humanness. While past research has shown that consumers have a propensity to form social connections with anthropomorphized products (e.g. Chen et al., 2017; Mourey et al., 2017), our findings extend beyond the social connectedness motivation documented in prior research with respect to anthropomorphized products. In our studies, we consistently find that consumers are concerned about the proper treatment of anthropomorphized products irrespective of whether the product is being bought (and hence, has no prior connection with the consumer) or being sold (and hence, a decision has already been made to part with the product). Importantly, our findings demonstrate that this concern is so strong that consumers are willing to incur a monetary cost – an effect that has not been demonstrated in any prior research in this area. Furthermore, this effect is unlikely due to mere liking for the anthropomorphized product; after all, when products are liked more and when consumers feel more attached to such products, they tend to increase the valuation of the product and demand higher payment to relinquish these products (e.g. Kahneman et al., 1990; McGraw et al., 2003; McGraw and Tetlock, 2005). However, the sellers in our studies were willing to accept a lower offer for the sale of an anthropomorphized product to ensure that the product is treated well. In sum, when confronted with the tension between monetary considerations and the desire to uphold human values, we find that consumers are willing to take on a monetary loss when making marketplace decisions about these products as a way to resolve the tension.

There is a well-established stream of work that has shown how human values (e.g. lives, love, friendship, etc.) are perceived to be sacred and that trading them off against economic values is seen as a taboo. The phenomenon of taboo trade-offs has been found primarily in contexts that directly involve assessing actual human beings and trading off human sacred values with secular values (e.g. trading off human lives against monetary gain; Tetlock et al., 2000). While limited prior work has shown evidence of this taboo trade-offs effect in the context of products, these previous studies all involved products that are directly associated with specific other humans – e.g. loved ones (McGraw and Tetlock, 2005; McGraw et al., 2016). Our work builds on this prior work by documenting the first instance of taboo trade-offs in a context that does not directly involve decisions about human beings or about products associated with specific humans that consumers are close to. Our work shows that people exhibit a similar aversion to trading off human values with monetary values in a context where products are merely anthropomorphized – a fairly prevalent marketing technique used in the marketplace.

More broadly, the findings of this research also add to prior work that highlights the tension in consumer decision-making when competing frames are simultaneously used to evaluate products – in this case, balancing human values with economic values. Prior work that has looked at consumer–brand relationships (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998), sharing economy (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2010), gift giving (Belk and Coon, 1993; Sherry, 1983) and other contexts such as marketing of art, celebrities and nonprofits have highlighted the tension and challenges of making decisions where monetary concerns clash with human emotions, relational norms, values and attachments. Our research adds to this important and consequential research stream by identifying yet another context where the sacred and the profane come head-to-head in consumer decision-making. To date, prior research has not documented any effect whereby the tension between human values and economic values are experienced in the context of anthropomorphized products, which then significantly change the way otherwise rational, economics-based transactions are conducted. Our findings suggest that monetary exchanges with even mundane products can cue human value concerns, simply by anthropomorphizing these products.

8.2 Managerial implications

This research is not only theoretically important, but it also has a number of managerially relevant real-world implications. Our research has significant implications for the used-product market by highlighting the importance of buyers communicating to potential sellers how their beloved products will be treated. Any signals of care and concern for the products that potential buyers can send to potential sellers will increase the chance that they will be successful in clinching the sale. Relatedly, our work has important insights for managers who market and manage websites for used products and even new products that require price bids and active bargaining. We show in Study 1 that, for anthropomorphized products, consumers are reluctant to actively participate in aggressive price bargaining and low-balling the seller because that is likely to be demeaning to the humanlike entity. Sellers and marketers of products that require price bids can potentially make more money by anthropomorphizing their products thereby getting a higher price than they otherwise might. Furthermore, the results of our Study 2 (i.e. repairing vs replacing a watch) demonstrate that people prefer to preserve and protect their existing products even if they have the option of replacing these products with a brand-new version of that product at no cost. In fact, people seem to be willing to spend extra money to preserve their old products. Thus, for anthropomorphized products, managers might do well to promote additional optional products and services like extended warranty and care packages that highlight the protection and better sustenance of these products. In Studies 3, 4 and 5 we find that consumers are willing to pay a monetary cost to not just preserve the sanctity of human life but also to preserve the sanctity of the human body. Getting more money by selling body parts seems repulsive and in violation of basic human decency. Managers might do well to promote product buy-back when selling new versions of products, as well as promoting a repair and maintenance culture – a very lucrative area of business that is often overlooked by businesses.

Our results also have relevant implications for product disposal – particularly, recycling. Typically, recycling a product necessarily involves that the existing product be completely destroyed and broken down to its basic raw material, which can then be used to manufacture a brand-new product. Our findings suggest that recycling an anthropomorphized product may be seen by consumers as being akin to dismembering it, resulting in a strong negative reaction. Our work highlights an important distinction between recycling (which typically involves destroying the original product so the broken-down ingredients could be used for other products) and reusing (which allows the product to be used how it was meant to be used originally). We find that people resist the idea of breaking apart an anthropomorphized product to recycle it; however, if marketers can reframe recycling as a “rebirth” or “second life” for the humanized product, it is possible that consumers may be more willing to recycle. In fact, consumers may be much more inclined to do so rather than sending their beloved products to a landfill.

8.3 Future directions

Across different studies, our research has identified a number of contexts where consumers exhibit the reluctance to trade off human values with monetary values. Although it has not been explicitly identified in past research, it is entirely reasonable to expect that human values may be placed on a spectrum whereby some values are harder to compromise on than others. For example, killing a person might be seen as a more immoral act than exploiting a person for personal gain. In the context of products, people may be less willing to sell their anthropomorphized car to a scrap shop that will dismember it for the use of its parts compared to selling the same car to be used as a taxi and be “exploited” as a slave-worker. Prior work on tragic trade-offs (Tetlock, 2003) has noted that the same decision may be evaluated differently if the alternative is a taboo or a tragic option (i.e. trading off a sacred vs profane value or trading off a sacred vs another sacred value). For example, if the choice is to sell one’s used car to a scrap shop versus a taxi operator, consumers may view both these options negatively and decide not to sell at all. Alternatively, they may choose the lesser of two evils and feel satisfied by their decision. Future research could examine if there is a spectrum of human values that vary from most inviolable to not so inviolable and to examine how consumers might choose between different human values when faced with trading them off against each other, especially in the context of anthropomorphized products. Relatedly, people are, at times, willing to commit unconscionable acts against others for a sufficient amount of monetary gain. In the product domain, for the right price, consumers may be willing to choose financial gains over protecting the integrity of anthropomorphized products. After all, these are commercial products, and at some point, the extra cost might be too high a price to pay to “save” the “life” of something that was never a real living being. Future research could also investigate, at what level of potential monetary gain or loss, consumers are willing to choose secular values (money) over sacred human values.

Our results highlight the important role played by chronic human traits such as empathy toward others. Empathy seems to be a key factor in determining the extent to which people find it important to uphold human values, even in nonhuman entities like commonplace products. Interestingly, we find that most people exhibit this tendency to care for human values and that at least in our sample of participants, there were very few people who were low on empathy as a chronic trait. This suggests that even if caring is costly, most consumers are likely to uphold human values – a fact that bodes well for the future of humanity!

Figures

Figure 1.

Research model

Figure 2.

Moderated mediation model showing that the effect of anthropomorphism and trait empathy on buyer preference is mediated by concern for the treatment of the product (Study 5)

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.