AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Brigitte Gaal Cluver for ...

found that consumers formed strong attachments to objects that symbolized others
who are significant in their lives and /or objects that symbolized aspects of
themselves. Consumers’ attachments to objects associated with significant others is
also noted in Belk et al.’s (1989) research conclusions. Informants in their study
indicated that objects received as inheritance or gifts attained sacred status if they
served as tangible symbols of relationships with loved ones. Furthermore, Schultz
et.al. (1989) found that individuals formed strong attachments to possessions that
brought out both a sense of individuation and integration, provided a sense of
continuity by linking one’s past, present and future, and were associated with positive
emotions. Similarly, Hirschman and LaBarbera (1990) found a wide array of reasons
why certain possessions were important to their informants, including objects that
symbolized accomplishment, represented individuals’ pasts and personal memories,
linked individuals to love ones, and/or were religious objects were considered
important. Along similar lines, Indian American immigrants interviewed in Mehta and
Belk’s (1991) study indicated they treasured most those possessions that symbolized
their past, family, and heritage.
Weak attachments to possessions. It is important to note, however, that
consumers do not form strong attachments to all of their possessions. Klein et al.
(1995) also found that consumers’ have weak, mixed, and non-attachments to
possessions. Subjects in their study indicated they had only weak attachments to
objects that were no longer in style and were no longer representative of their selves.
In support of these findings, Freitas et al. (1997) found individuals favored least their
clothing that did not reflect the identities they wanted to express. Kleine et al. (1995)
25