The Limits of Fungibility: Relational Schemata and the Value of Things


A. Peter McGraw, Philip E. Tetlock, and Orie V. Kristel (2002) ,"The Limits of Fungibility: Relational Schemata and the Value of Things", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 29, eds. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto, Valdosta, GA : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 162-163.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 29, 2002     Pages 162-163


A. Peter McGraw, Ohio State University

Philip E. Tetlock, University of California, Berkeley

Orie V. Kristel, The Strategy Team, Ltd.

Four studies investigate the effect of relational source on object valuations in endowment effect and mental accounting paradigms. Violations of source independence are particularly problematic for economic theories that assume perfect fungibility, or the reduction of all values to a single metric of utility (such as money). To examine the effect of objects that possess social-emotional significance in consumer behavior settings we draw on Fiske’s (1991) analysis of relational schemata, which posits four types of relationships people use to organize, evaluate and coordinate their social interactions:

(1) Communal sharing (CS) slices the social world into emotionally charged classes that allow us to differentiate people into in-groups and out-groups but that do not allow distinctions of degree. Examples include romantic dyads, kinships, or nations states.

(2) Authority ranking (AR) imposes an ordinal ranking on the social world that permits lexical decision rules. One’s location in this ranking scheme (e.g., military ranking) determines one’s relative status in a collective and the prevailing direction of accountability for decision-making.

(3) Equality matching (EM) defines socially meaningful intervals that can be added or subtracted to keep score in social interaction. The social prototype is collegial or friendship networks in which reciprocity is a dominant exchange norm.

(4) Market pricing (MP) makes possible ratio comparisons of the values of diverse entities. This structure underlies capitalism and monetary transactions.

In general, the models differ in their moral significance, social value, and motivational strength, and can be ordered in terms of their emotional and cognitive importance: CS>AR>EM>MP. A sharp qualitative distinction aso exists between MP and the socially meaningful relationships (CS, AR, and EM). In the studies, we also employ Fiske and Tetlock’s (1997) model of taboo trade-offs, which proposes people are cognitively distressed and morally outraged when they are required to assess the value of a socially meaningful relationship using a disparate relational model.

Participants in Study I were presented scenarios that described objects that were acquired from one of the four relational sources. An offer to purchase an object received from a market-pricing relationship was treated as routine. However, when the object was received via communal-sharing, authority-ranking, or equality matching relationships, participants were upset by the offer, tended to refuse to provide selling prices, and if selling prices were given, they were well in excess of the possession’s objective value.

Study II replicated Study I with a more naturalistic design. Participants were asked to call to mind possessions they received from the four relational sources, and imagine an offer was made to buy the object. When the object had been received from a socially meaningful relation, particularly a communal-sharing relationship, participants were confused and outraged by the offer, and gave selling prices several times the objective value of the object. Moreover, participants were less likely to enter their object for sale in an auction. In short, Studies I and II illustrated how considerations of relational source can profoundly moderate the magnitude of the endowment effect.

Study III examined buying prices for potentially meaningful objects in an estate auction. Participants imagined they were bidding for an object that had been previously owned by someone who represented one of the four relational types. Participants spent more money and were more likely to use an additional mental account (by spending future earnings) when the relationship symbolized communal-sharing, authority-ranking, and equality-matching relationships.

Study IV further investigated the role of relational source on mental accounting and spending behavior. Participants imagined they received a windfall sum of money via one of the four relational sources. The dependent variable was the respondents’ choice either to purchase a purely market-priced item or to save the money. The relational source moderated the tendency to spend the windfall. The money was more likely to be saved than spentBas windfalls typically areBas the source moved from market pricing to communal sharing. Oxymoronic though it sounds, even money is not always fungible.

The four studies provide support for a social-relational perspective on selling and buying behavior. The results indicated that people draw a distinction between "particularlistic" (CS, AR, EM) and "universalistic" (MP) relationshipsBthat is, relationships in which people care very much about the identities of the actors from whom they receive goods and services and relationships in which people are indifferent to the identity of the actors (cf. Foa and Foa, 1974; Bringberg and Wood, 1983). Studies I and II revealed increases in distress when people were asked to sell objects from communal-sharing, authority-ranking, and equality-matching relationships, and that stress manifested itself in higher selling prices and reluctance to cooperate with the purchase offer. Studies III and IV demonstrate the role of relational source on people in their more customary role as consumers making choices. In both studies, symbolic meaning and relational expectations played important roles in shaping mental accounting and ultimate purchasing decisions.


Arkes, Hal R., Cynthia A Joyner, Mark V. Pezzo, Jane G. Nash, K. Siegel-Jacobs and Eric Stone (1994). The psychology of windfall gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 331-347.

Baron, Jonathan and Sarah Leshner (2000). How serious are expressions of protected values? Unpublished manuscript web address

Belk, Russell W.(1976). It’s the thought that counts: A signed digraph analysis of gift-giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 155-162.

Belk, Russell W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Belk, Russell W. and Gregory S. Coon (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 393-417.

Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf and John F. Sherry (1989). The sacred and profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 1-38.

Brinberg, David and Ronald Wood (1983). A resource exchange theory analysis of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 330-338.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deighton, John and Kent Grayson (1995). Marketing and seduction: Building exchange relationships by managing social consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 660-676.

Durkheim, Emile (1925/1976). The elementary forms of the religious life, 2nd edition. London: Allen and Unwin.

Fiske, Alan P.(1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of social relations. New York: Free Press.

Fiske, Alan P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.

Fiske, Alan P., and Tetlock, P. (1997). Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress the domain of relationships. Political Psychology, 18, 255-297.

Foa, Uriel, and Foa, Edna (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, Il.: Thomas.

Fournier, Susan (1988). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373.

Grayso, Kent., and Shulman, David (2000). Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable possessions: A semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 17-30.

Haslam, Nick and Alan P. Fiske (1992). Implicit relationship prototypes: Investigating five theories of the cognitive organization of social relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 441-474.

Kahneman, Daniel, Jack Knetsch and Richard Thaler (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325-1348

Kahneman, Daniel, David Schkade, and Cass R. Sunstein (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49-86.

Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.

Keeney, Ralph L. and Howard Raiffa (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

Kleine, Susan S., Robert E. Kleine and Chris T. Allen (1995). How is a possession "me" or "not me"? Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 327-343.

Loewenstein, George and D. Adler (1995). A bias in the prediction of tastes. Economic Journal, 105, 929-937.

Loewenstein, George and Samuel Issacharoff. (1994). Source dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 157-168.

Lukes, Steven (1991). Moral conflict and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCracken, Grant (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 71-84.

Mehta, Raj, and Russell W. Belk (1991). Artifacts, identity, and transition: Favorite possessions of Indians and Indian immigrants to the United States. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 398-411.

Mick, David G.(1986). Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of signs, symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 196-213.

Mick, David G. and Michelle Demoss (1990). Self-gifts: Phenomenological insights from four contexts. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 322-332.

Mitchell, Robert C. and Richard T. Carson (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

O’Curry, Suzanne (1997). Income source effects. Working paper. Department of Marketing, DePaul University. Chicago, Il.

Okada, Erica Mina (2001). Trade-ins, mental accounting, and product replacement decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 433-446.

Otnes, Cele, Tina M Lowrey and Chan Kim Young (1993). Gift selection for easy and difficult recipients: A social roles interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 229-244.

Raz, Joseph (1986). The morlity of freedom. New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford, University Press.

Richins, Marsha L.(1994a). Valuing things: The public and private meaning of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 504-521.

Richins, Marsha L. (1994b). Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of Consumer Research. 21, 522-533.

Samuelson, William and Richard Zeckhauser (1988). Status-quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.

Strahilivetz, Michal and George Loewenstein (1998). The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 276-288.

Tetlock, Philip E., (In press). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: People as intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review.

Tetlock, Philip E., Randall Peterson and Jennifer Lerner (1996). Revising the value pluralism model: Incorporating social content and context postulates. In C. Seligman, J. Olson, and M. Zanna (eds.), Ontario symposium on social and personality psychology: Values. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Tetlock, Philip E., Orie Kristel, Beth Elson, Melanie Green and Jennifer Lerner (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78, 853-870.

Thaler, Richard H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39-60.

Thaler, Richard H.(1992). The winner’s curse: Paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. NY The Free Press.

Thaler, Richard H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183-206.

Thompson, L.L., and R. Gonzalez (1997). Environmental disputes: Competition for scarce resources and clashing of values. In M.H. Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel, and K.A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics and behavior, pp. 75-104. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric J. Arnould (1988). "My favorite things": A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 531-547.

Zelizer, Vivian A. (1994). The social meaning of money. New York: Basic Books.



A. Peter McGraw, Ohio State University
Philip E. Tetlock, University of California, Berkeley
Orie V. Kristel, The Strategy Team, Ltd.


NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 29 | 2002

Share Proceeding

Featured papers

See More


Attribution of Authenticity: The Benefits of Self-Disclosure of Unfavorable Information

Li Jiang, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Maryam Kouchaki, Northeastern University, USA
Francesca Gino, Harvard Business School, USA

Read More


E4. Doing Good for Nothing: Motive Inferences from the Probabilistic Profits of Prosociality

Ike Silver, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Jackie Silverman, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Read More


My Money is Yours, but My Time is Still Mine: Inseparability of Consumption from the Self Increases Control and Giving

John P. Costello, Ohio State University, USA
Selin A. Malkoc, Ohio State University, USA

Read More

Engage with Us

Becoming an Association for Consumer Research member is simple. Membership in ACR is relatively inexpensive, but brings significant benefits to its members.