Dinner Out With Independent Self-Construal Consumers: Wow, This Is Bad Wine

mental behavioral 2 EG vs. no-choice The manipulation of mental ownership was successful and it was not due to an effect of the manipulation on mental imagery. To test the proposed research model we ran several path models in AMOS. First, we assessed a model without mere-mental ownership. In this model we restrained all paths leading to and from mental ownership to 0. None of the fit-indices reached the required levels. Second and to test the proposed mediating function of mere-mental ownership, we assessed a model with mere-mental ownership as a mediator, which led to satisfying levels of model fit. Overall there is support for the partial mediation proposed in the research model. Mere-mental ownership decreases the influence of imagery vividness on attachment and attitudes and it significantly predicts product attachment and attitudes. These main results hold for both products even when the paths are constrained across groups. In addition and in contrast to most previous research we show that neither mental imagery nor mental ownership directly influence behaviour. In particular, attachment seems to predict behavioural intentions. This finding fits into a growing stream of research which indicates that attachments rather than attitudes are important indicators of behaviour (e.g., Park, MacInnis, & Priester, 2006; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005). Interestingly, the importance of attachment also underlines the importance of mere-mental ownership. Our results show that mere-mental ownership has considerably more impact on attachment than on attitudes. Hence, mental ownership seems to be indeed a powerful imagery content. Considering that people’s imagery content can probably be influenced, mental ownership, like factual ownership, might prove to be of tremendous theoretical and practical importance in several contexts and disciplines.