访谈对话：我的就是我们的是什么意思？对信息共享的态度的探讨

Technology hasn’t just changed the way consumers use goods and services, it’s also changed the way they own them. Music collections, for example, have evolved from hundreds of alphabetically-organized records on a shelf, to carefully edited digital libraries, to the 2021 version — a list of songs stored on Spotify or some other streaming platform. What consumers used to think of as “mine” is now “ours” in the sharing economy, where everything from car rides to books has become less of a coveted item and more of an experience.

科技不仅改变了消费者使用商品和服务的方式，也改变了他们拥有的方式。例如，音乐收藏已经从数百张按字母顺序排列的唱片，发展到精心编辑的数字图书馆，再到存储在Spotify或其他流媒体平台上的歌曲列表。在共享经济中，过去被消费者认为是“我的”东西现在变成了“我们的”，从乘车到阅读，一切都不再是令人垂涎的有形物品，而是一种体验。

But marketers know that there is value in psychological ownership. When customers form an emotional attachment or self-identify with a product, that sense of “mine” enhances its luster and keeps them coming back for more. As shoppers shift away from owning material things, how can marketers preserve these benefits? Some answers can be found in a new study, “Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership frxwork,” which recently appeared in the Journal of Marketing. Wharton marketing professor Deborah Small and Carey Morewedge, a marketing professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business, are two of the paper’s authors. They joined Knowledge@Wharton to talk about changes in consumption and offered some strategies for marketers.

但心理所有权是有价值的。当顾客对产品形成情感依恋或自我认同时，这种“我的”感觉会增强产品的光泽，让他们不断地需要更多。那么，当消费者不再执着于拥有某项物品时，企业将如何应对这一趋势？在最近发表在《市场营销杂志》上的一项新研究“消费的演变：心理所有权框架”中可以找到一些答案。论文作者沃顿商学院营销学教授黛博拉·斯莫和波士顿大学奎斯特罗姆商学院营销学教授凯里·莫韦奇最近和沃顿知识在线讨论了对于消费和心理所有权演变的研究，并为企业营销提供了一些策略。

Read an edited transcr1ipt of the conversation below.

阅读下面经过编辑的对话记录。

Knowledge@Wharton: This is such a timely topic for marketers. What made you want to study it and what questions were you trying to answer?

沃顿知识在线：对于营销人员来说，这是一个非常及时的话题。是什么让你想研究它？你想回答什么问题？

Deborah Small: There is this very classic and robust finding in the science of decision-making known as the “endowment effect.” The endowment effect is the fact that people value things more when they own them than they would if they were not in their possession. For instance, if you had a fancy bottle of wine in your possession, the amount of money you would be willing to [accept to] give it up is much higher than the amount of money you would be willing to pay to acquire it if you didn’t own it.

斯莫：在决策科学中有一个非常经典和有力的发现，被称为“禀赋效应”。禀赋效应是指当个人一旦拥有某项物品，那么他对该物品价值的评价要比未拥有之前大大提高。例如，如果你拥有一瓶名贵的葡萄酒，你愿意[接受]放弃它的金额要比你未拥有时愿意购买它的金额高得多。

Scholars have understood for a long time that ownership takes on this special psychological significance, but much of this evidence was based on very traditional possessions, very tangible items that a person had all to themselves. Maybe a coffee mug or something like that. What really started this paper was our musings about all of these new business models and new technologies that are moving away from traditional forms of ownership. Rather than owning my own car or bicycle, I might participate in ridesharing or bike-sharing. Before, I had all these bookshelves filled with books and CDs and photo albums; now, I can store these things virtually. We used to keep all of our medical records and tax records and bank account records. All that personal data was stored in a filing cabinet in physical files in our homes. Now, that storage is mainly in the cloud in an opaque form.

长期以来，学者们一直认为所有权具有这种特殊的心理意义，但证据大多基于有形物品，比如一套家具。本文真正的出发点是我们对新商业模式的思考。
目前新的商业模式和新技术正在摆脱传统的所有权形式。与其拥有自己的汽车或自行车，我可以用共享单车或共享出行。以前，我的书架上堆满了书、CD和相册；现在，我可以用云存储。以前所有的医疗记录、税务记录和银行账户等个人资料都储存在文件柜里。现在，它们以不透明的形式存在于云中。

These advances are no doubt fantastic and provide a lot of value to consumers, but we found that they’re missing some of the signature markers of ownership. One is tangibility: I can still experience music, but I don’t have a physical album. Second, permanence: When I use a rideshare, I don’t expect a long-term relationship with that car. We wrote this paper as a way to try to deepen our understanding of what is at stake here from a psychological ownership perspective.

这些进步无疑是了不起的，并为消费者提供了很多价值。但我们发现，他们缺少一些传统的所有权的特征。传统所有权的特征第一是有形，而现在我虽然可以体验音乐，但我没有实体唱片。第二是永久性。而现在我使用共享单车时，并不长期拥有那辆车。我们的研究是为了从心理所有权的角度加深对目前趋势的理解。

Carey Morewedge: I remember in graduate school I would go to the library, and if I had to read an article, I would photocopy it and write all over it. Those articles became a treasured resource locked in a filing cabinet in my office, and I would go back to the same physical document each time, covered in notes, underlining, and my reactions. When I eventually moved offices, I recycled all of that because I had duplicates on my computer, but it still felt like a loss of the self. I use PDFs now. Everything is digital, and I can read it anywhere, but there’s something about that digital copy that I don’t care as much about. I don’t feel ownership for the collection of PDFs that I store in the cloud. At least not in the way that those tangible pieces of paper felt like part of me.

莫韦奇：我记得在研究生院时会去图书馆，如果我必须读一篇文章，我会把它影印下来，然后在上面写评论。这些文章成了我文件柜里的珍贵资源，上面有我的笔记。当我最终搬家的时候，我把所有文件都处理掉了，因为电脑上有影印版文件。但我还是觉得因此失去了自我。我现在用的所有文档都是数字的，可以在任何地方阅读，但我似乎对这些数字文档没有太多感情。我不觉得自己拥有云空间里的PDF集合。至少不像那些有形的文件感觉像是我自己的一部分。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

“The trend is shifting such that we’re owning less and less material, tangible things than we did in the past.”–Deborah Small

“这种趋势正在改变，我们拥有的物质和有形的东西比过去越来越少。”——黛博拉·斯莫
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

The second personal example is when I was younger, I was a DJ, and I have thousands of records in my house. I haven’t played them for a while. I’ve got a young child, a second on the way, and don’t have time to do that. But I still see them on the wall, and they remind me of a part of my identity and past. The music that I listen to now is no more or less important to me, but it somehow feels different because when I close my laptop or turn off my phone, it all disappears. There’s no permanence to that kind of content.

第二个例子是我年轻的时候是个DJ，家里有上千张唱片。我有一阵子没玩音乐了。现在我马上就要当妈妈了，没时间玩音乐。但我仍然在墙上看到这些唱片，它们让我想起了自己的一部分身份和过去的岁月。我现在也听音乐，但感觉有些不同，因为当我关上电脑或手机时，一切都消失了。它们似乎没有永久性。

This exchange that we’re making is extraordinarily convenient. I can be on the beach and pull down from the cloud the exact song I want to listen to, or the book I want to read. At the same time, it feels like we’re losing something — the feeling of mine. Our paper tries to understand and explore the consequences of its absence.

现在要听音乐或阅读非常方便。我可以躺在沙滩上，在手机上从云端听我想听的歌，想读的书。但是同时，我们失去了一些东西——那种感觉。本文试图理解和探讨其缺失的后果。

Knowledge@Wharton: In the paper, you identify two important changes in consumer behavior. The first one is a change from legal ownership of goods to legal access of goods. The second one is that material possession is being replaced with experiences. Can you explain those?

沃顿知识在线：在本文中，您确定了消费者行为有两个重要变化。第一个是从合法拥有商品到合法获取商品的转变。第二，物质占有正在被体验经历所取代。你能解释一下吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Small: We’re not the first to notice these changes. There’s been much discussion about access-based consumption. Sometimes it’s referred to as “liquid consumption,” which essentially distributes or spreads out property rights across hundreds, even thousands of consumers. As Dr. Morewedge mentioned, this is very convenient for consumers. It’s cheaper, it’s less of a commitment, they can try out different things without the big expensive purchase. There’s a lot of freedom there for consumers, but they also lose a lot of control over the good because it’s not just theirs anymore. It’s also very temporary and short-lived, so they are less prone to develop psychological attachments and feel connections to their goods. These are critical aspects of psychological ownership — the ability to control things, the development of a relationship over time.

斯莫：我们不是第一个注意到这些变化的人。对于基于访问的消费有很多讨论。有时它被称为“流动消费”，实质上是将产权分配或分散到数百数千人或更多。正如莫韦奇博士所提到的，这对消费者来说非常方便。它更便宜，更不需要承诺，他们不需要昂贵的购买，就可以尝试不同的东西。
消费者拥有了很多自由，但他们也失去了对商品的控制，因为商品不再只属于他们。同时这种消费体验也是暂时和短暂的，所以他们不太容易对它们发展出心理依恋和感情。这些都是心理所有权的关键要素——控制力，以及关系的发展。

The feeling that something is mine is a function of believing I am in control and expect to maintain something for a long time. That’s the first dimension — legal ownership to legal access. The second is this shift from more material consumption to more experiential consumption. We’re moving away from physical goods in many categories, to things that we merely experience, or that are digital or ephemeral in some way.
The key threat to psychological ownership here is the lack of tangibility. Tangibility is a signature marker of a possession. Consider the case of purchasing a DVD for your movie collection. We don’t do that anymore. We purchase access to consume music.But it’s also more than that. The goal of purchasing is more about experiencing that movie or song rather than the goal of owning it or having it. It’s not that we never did that before — we went on vacation and stayed in a hotel, and we rented things occasionally. But the trend is shifting such that we’re owning less and less material, tangible things than we did in the past.

感觉某样东西是我的，这是一种相信我具有控制力并能保有它很长时间的功能。这是第一个维度的转变——从合法所有权转变为合法访问权。第二个维度的转变是从物质消费转向体验消费。我们正在从拥有许多实物商品，转向仅是去体验，或在某种程度上是数字化或短暂拥有的物品。
心理所有权面临的主要威胁是缺乏有形性。有形是占有的标志。考虑一下你为了电影收藏购买了多少DVD。现在我们购买的是消费权，是为了体验电影或歌曲，而不是拥有它。并不是说我们以前不这么做——我们去度假，住在旅馆里，偶尔租用物品。但这种大趋势正在形成：我们拥有的物质和有形的东西越来越少。

Knowledge@Wharton: The paper identifies three macro trends in marketing. What are those?

沃顿知识在线：本文指出了消费市场的三大趋势。那些是什么？

Morewedge: The first would be growth of the sharing economy. We’re now engaging in many kinds of collaborative consumption like renting, reselling, and lending. We’re consuming things simultaneously. Many people are reading the same file or listening to the same music at once, and we’re resource pooling. It’s not that these things weren’t present in our economy before. People used libraries and shared with their friends and neighbors. The difference is that these platforms are mediating these kinds of transactions between strangers. What used to be public goods or things that you shared with your friends are now things that we’re using through this exchange with other people through these technologically-mediated platforms. You could think about a rideshare platform or a bicycle rental or renting an office from WeWork or renting clothes from Rent the Runway. We might not necessarily have wanted to spend the money on a fancy outfit for a wedding, and now you can rent that. It’s not that there weren’t places that you could rent clothes before, but it’s becoming much easier, and we’re using it for much more of our life.

莫韦奇：首先是共享经济的增长。我们现在从事多种合作消费（共享经济），如租赁、转售和出借。我们同时消费同一样东西。很多人同时在读同一本书或听同一首音乐，我们正在进行资源共享。并不是说以前就没有这些东西。以前人们也有图书馆，或与朋友和邻居等熟人分享事物。不同之处在于，现在的这些平台在陌生人之间调解这类交易，我们通过这些技术中介平台和陌生人交流共享。
我们从共享平台租车，从WeWork租办公室，或者从Rent the Runway租衣服。并不是说以前没有地方租衣服，但现在越来越容易了，我们也越来越多地使用这些服务。

“Our possessions become part of our self. And we see ourselves, and thus our things, through rose-colored glasses.”–Carey Morewedge

“我们的财产成为自我的一部分。通过玫瑰色的眼镜，我们看到了它们，也看到了自己。”——凯里·莫韦奇

The second is the digitization of goods and services. Streaming is now the most popular way to consume music, and we see this kind of diffusion of digital consumption through books, email, films, magazines, maps, news, and television. Think about the last time that you opened a paper map or the last time that you sent letters. Most of our letters are exchanged in these kinds of digital communications. Those are not necessarily the ones that people consider identity-relevant (like a birthday card), but the kinds of goods that we used to think about as holding our cherished memories (like our communications, our photographs, our videos) are now all digital.

第二是商品和服务的数字化。流媒体是现在最流行的音乐消费方式，数字消费几乎囊括所有传播。想想上一次你打开纸质地图或者亲笔写信是什么时候？现在我们都是用电子邮件，发给朋友的是电子贺卡……过去曾用来保存珍贵记忆的物品（比如信件、照片、视频）现在都是数字化的。

The last trend is expansion of personal data. Our interactions, whether with government or with businesses, were often constrained to a record that was a single exchange. We had a receipt, and that was the data that existed about our behavior. Now, governments and firms have incredibly personal information about all facets of our lives: where we visited, who we were with, what photographs and videos we’ve taken, what’s our search history, what’s our medical or even our genetic information.

最后一个趋势是个人数据的扩张。过去个人与政府、与企业的互动，往往局限于单一的交易记录。现在，政府和各企业有令人难以置信的个人信息：我们去了哪里，和谁在一起，拍了什么照片和视频，搜索历史，医疗信息，甚至基因信息，都有记录。

The firm owns that data and is selling it to others for marketing purposes for loans or for credit cards. The question of who owns that kind of information is becoming increasingly relevant for consumers. That tension is being played out in really interesting kinds of policy arguments about what data should firms own, what data should consumers have rights to, and do we have a right to be forgotten. We wanted to map paths for the field to explore.

而企业拥有这些数据，则有可能出售给其它企业用于贷款或信用卡的营销目的。谁拥有这类信息对消费者来说变得越来越重要。目前有很多争论涉及企业应该拥有哪些数据，消费者应该有权获得哪些数据，以及我们是否有权被遗忘。我们想为这个领域探索更多路径。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Knowledge@Wharton: If psychological ownership is so beneficial in marketing, what can marketers do to preserve it?

沃顿知识在线：如果心理所有权在营销中如此有益，那么营销人员可以做些什么？

Small: It’s important to start with an understanding of the underlying features of psychological ownership that are particularly meaningful and important to consumers. Feeling in control. Being able to express who you are through the goods that you possess. There’s a very seminal academic article in marketing titled “Possessions and the Extended Self,” which is all about how our possessions help define who we are and signal who we are both to ourselves and to others. Everything from the type of car you drive to your brand of blue jeans says something about who you are. To answer your question about how marketers need to think about this, it’s going to vary a lot across firms and product categories. But marketers need to be thinking about ways to offer those benefits in other forms and ways to retain psychological ownership as they shift to these new models.

斯莫：重要的是，首先要了解心理所有权的基本特征，这些特征对消费者特别有意义和重要。比如：感觉有控制力；能够通过你拥有的物品来表达你是谁。在市场营销领域有一篇非常有开创性的研究论文，标题是“财产和扩展的自我”（Possessions and the Extended Self），它是关于财产如何帮助定义我们是谁，如何向自己和他人表明我们是谁。从你所驾驶的汽车类型到你的牛仔裤品牌，每件事都能说明你是谁。营销人员需要考虑如何以其他形式提供这些好处，以及如何在转向这些新模式时让用户保持心理所有权。

Can they find new ways to offer their consumers choices even when they’re in an access-based consumption model? Let’s say they’re sexting a car for a rental or a rideshare. Can they still have choices over the features of that car, so they feel more in control? Are there other opportunities for them to express who they are within these platforms, where they’re creating profiles of themselves and interacting with other consumers and firms?
It’s going to vary a lot, but I think the crux is for marketers to recognize that those are some of the key features that provide value to consumers, and to try to kind of creatively find ways to bring those back.

即使是在基于访问的消费模式下，他们能否找到新方式为消费者提供选择？假设他们选择租车或搭车，他们能对那辆车的功能有选择吗？这样他们就能感觉到更多的控制力。他们是否能在这些平台上表达自己的身份，创建个人资料，并与其他消费者和公司互动？
关键是营销人员要认识到，这些都是为消费者提供价值的一些关键功能，并尝试创造性地找到方法将这些功能融入到体验中。

“Everything from the type of car you drive to your brand of blue jeans says something about who you are. The question is: What is lost, psychologically-speaking, when much of consumption exists without ownership?”–Deborah Small

“从你驾驶的汽车类型到你的牛仔裤品牌，每件事都能说明你是谁。现在，从心理上讲，当顾客对所消费物品没有所有权时，他们失去了什么？“–黛博拉·斯莫

Morewedge: I would think first about the kinds of changes that are happening and how we find ways to either address them, offset them, or channel them. Think about the impermanence of things. If consumers access their health data through MyChart in the cloud, for example, are there ways to give them an extended feeling of permanence? If we’re losing the tangibility of material goods for these kinds of experiences, are there ways that we can offer control that aren’t necessarily physical, but that give us different kinds of control over the goods?

莫韦奇：我会首先考虑正在发生的变化，以及我们如何找到解决、抵消或引导这些变化的方法。想想事物的无常。例如，如果消费者通过云中访问健康数据，能否让他们有一种持久的感觉？如果失去了有形物品，有没有办法提供其它类型的控制权？

In experiential consumption, when you’re buying a trip from point A to point B in a rideshare like Uber or Lyft, it’s ambiguous who owns what. You’re purchasing a ride, but what do you really own in that kind of context? Give people some sense of clarity about what they own. For example, if you’re renting a house on Airbnb, do you get information about your upcoming visit and what you’re getting with your trip? Are there ways we can remind people of their usage history and all the kinds of experiences that they’ve had in these kinds of settings? Are there kinds of gamification we can use to show people a progression in their status through different kinds of programs? You’ve listened to this song 10 times! These were your top 10 songs on the streaming service in 2020. Give those experiences meaning, and connect them to memory cues, markers of having had them.

在体验式消费中，当你在优步或Lyft上打车或租车旅行时，谁拥有什么是模糊的。你买的是一项服务，在这种情况下你真正拥有什么？企业可以尝试让人们对自己的拥有提供一种清晰的感觉。
例如，如果你在Airbnb租房，你有没有得到关于你即将到访的信息，以及你的旅行会得到什么？我们有没有办法提醒人们他们的使用历史以及在这些环境中的各种经历？我们是否可以用游戏化的方式，通过不同的程序向人们展示他们的生活轨迹？这首歌你已经听了10遍了！这是在2020年流媒体服务中最受你喜爱的10首歌曲。给那些经历赋予意义，并把它们与记忆线索联系起来，作为个人生活的标志。

So, brands have to start thinking about whether or not they want to engage in vertical integration to keep consumers caring about their brand. Brands have to think about becoming commodities in cases where they were once these really strong markers of a consumer’s identity. Disney pulled most of its content from Netflix, for example, and started its own streaming platform. That may save Disney movies from becoming fungible with all the other programming for kids available through Netflix (or Amazon).

品牌商必须开始考虑是否要进行垂直整合，以保持消费者对品牌的关心。而品牌曾经是消费者身份的有力标志。例如，迪斯尼从Netflix获取了大部分内容，并创建了自己的流媒体平台。这或许可以避免迪斯尼电影与其他通过Netflix（或亚马逊）提供的儿童节目相互替代。

These kinds of threats are also giving rise to new kinds of opportunities. In many cases, we’re engaging in new ways of collaborative consumption with other people. We have these communities of people consuming things that didn’t exist before. In those cases, we’re moving from mine to ours. Can brands tie into thinking about how we get people to feel membership in a group of consumers? There’s a lot of work in marketing looking at these kinds of brand communities. Harley Davidson is always touted as a firm that successfully built up a community around its products. Reddit is a place these communities appear to be forming organically. Other brands may have to start to think about that kind of development and get consumers to think about their membership in a group rather than their use of a particular good.

这些趋势也带来了新机遇。我们正在与其他人合作消费。这是一种新模式。物品的标签从“我的”转变成“我们的”。品牌是否能让人们感觉自己是消费者群体中的一员？有很多企业都在关注建设品牌社区。哈雷戴维森一直被标榜为一家成功地围绕其产品建立社群的公司。Reddit网站是这些社群有机形成的地方。其他品牌可能不得不开始考虑这种趋势，让消费者对于社群更有认同感，而不仅仅是商品的使用者。

Knowledge@Wharton: I was surprised to read in your paper that there are some instances where companies would actually benefit if their customers do not have a sense of ownership in the product. What kind of instances are those?

沃顿知识在线：我很惊讶地读到，在某些情况下，如果客户对产品没有所有权意识，公司实际上会从中受益。这些是什么例子？

Morewedge: We identify four in the paper. The first is when changes in access rights are likely. The next is when consumers are the product, like lots of advertising-based and freemium services. The third is when it creates frictions in sharing markets. And the last is when service quality is inconsistent.

莫韦奇：我们在论文中确定了四种案例。首先是访问权可能发生变化的时候。其次是消费者本身是产品的时候，比如基于广告的免费服务模式。第三是在共享市场上制造摩擦的情况。最后是服务质量不一致。

Getting to this question of access rights, for example, Microsoft ended sales of e-books in 2019, and it also dexed and refunded all books purchased through that platform. So, if I built this library on Microsoft e-books, it’s suddenly gone and I get a check in the mail for what I purchased. That kind of sudden change in access, if consumers do feel strong psychological ownership, may leave them to feel a sense of loss or anger when their access rights are revoked. So, when the catalog that firms are offering in terms of these access-based models is highly fluid, they may not want consumers to feel psychological ownership if it’s going to disappear later on.

例如，谈到访问权问题，微软在2019年结束了电子书的销售，删除并退还了通过该平台购买的所有书籍。如果我在微软电子书上建立了个人图书馆，它突然消失了，我在邮件中收到了我购买的支票。这种突如其来的访问权变化，可能会让他们感到失落或愤怒。因此，当公司提供的这些基于访问的服务非常不稳定时，他们可能不想让消费者感到心理上的所有权。

“Brands have to think about becoming commodities, even in categories where brands were once strong signals of identity to consumers and to their social world.”–Carey Morewedge

“品牌必须考虑成为商品，即使在那些品牌曾经是消费者及其社交世界的强烈身份标志的类别中也是如此。”—凯里·莫韦奇

The second case is when firms are using consumers as the product. When firms are profiting from advertising or mining and selling consumer personal data, they’re going to benefit from cases in which consumers feel little psychological ownership for their behavior online. Amazon may not want you to think about all of the data they have about all of the records and transactions that you’ve engaged in. Google may not want you to think about your search history as something that you have a right to control. When those kinds of services are monetized, firms profit when consumers don’t feel like they have ownership rights.

第二种情况是公司将消费者作为产品。当公司从挖掘和销售消费者个人数据以获取广告收益中获利时，他们将从消费者对其在线行为的心理归属感很低的现状中获益。亚马逊可能不想让你完全拥有你所有交易的数据。谷歌可能不想让你对你的搜索历史有控制权。当这些服务被货币化时，当消费者觉得他们没有所有权，公司就会获利。

The third case would be when it creates frictions in sharing markets. For example, if I feel really strong psychological ownership for a particular brand of car, whether it be BMW or Toyota or Honda or Ford, that may create frictions for Uber when they try to give me a substitute like a Hyundai.

第三种情况是它会在共享市场上制造摩擦。例如，如果我对某一品牌的汽车（无论是宝马、丰田、本田还是福特）有着强烈的心理归属感，那么当优步试图给我一辆现代时，可能会让我不满。

The last case is when service quality is inconsistent. As Dr. Small mentioned, this kind of endowment effect, or feeling of psychological ownership, has a value-enhancing effect. We see the things that are ours through these rose-colored glasses. If I feel psychological ownership for something, I may have higher expectations for the performance of that product, and firms have difficulty living up to that. We know that customer satisfaction is performance minus expectations, and so it may not need to have that kind of value enhancement that psychological ownership engenders.

最后一种情况是服务质量不一致。正如斯莫尔博士所提到的，这种禀赋效应，或者说心理归属感，有一种价值提升效应。我们透过这些玫瑰色的眼镜看到属于我们的东西。如果我对某样东西有心理归属感，我可能会对该产品的性能有更高期望，而公司很难做到这一点。我们知道，客户满意度是绩效减去期望值，因此，企业不需要有那种心理所有权产生的期望值。