Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453 – 460

Research Report
The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love
Michael I. Norton a,⁎, Daniel Mochon b , Dan Ariely c

a
Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA, 02163, USA
b
A.B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University, 7 McAlister Drive, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA
c
Duke University, 1 Towerview Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA

Received 8 March 2011; received in revised form 31 July 2011; accepted 11 August 2011
Available online 9 September 2011

Abstract

In four studies in which consumers assembled IKEA boxes, folded origami, and built sets of Legos, we demonstrate and investigate boundary
conditions for the IKEA effect—the increase in valuation of self-made products. Participants saw their amateurish creations as similar in value to
experts' creations, and expected others to share their opinions. We show that labor leads to love only when labor results in successful completion of
tasks; when participants built and then destroyed their creations, or failed to complete them, the IKEA effect dissipated. Finally, we show that labor
increases valuation for both “do-it-yourselfers” and novices.
© 2011 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Effort; Labor; Co-creation; Customization; Dissonance

Introduction One view of the impact of labor on valuation suggests that

asking customers to assume production costs should result in
When instant cake mixes were introduced in the 1950s as reduced willingness to pay once customers subtract the value
part of a broader trend to simplify the life of the American of their labor from the overall cost of the product; the above ex-
housewife by minimizing manual labor, housewives were ini- amples instead suggest that when people imbue products with
tially resistant: the mixes made cooking too easy, making their own labor, their effort can increase their valuation. And
their labor and skill seem undervalued. As a result, manufac- while some labor is enjoyable (building a bear with one's neph-
turers changed the recipe to require adding an egg; while ew) and some labor allows for product customization (building
there are likely several reasons why this change led to greater a bear with one's alma mater's logo)—both of which might in-
subsequent adoption, infusing the task with labor appeared to crease valuation—we suggest that labor alone can be sufficient
be a crucial ingredient (Shapiro, 2004). Similarly, Build-a- to induce greater liking for the fruits of one's labor: even con-
Bear offers people the “opportunity” to construct their own structing a standardized bureau, an arduous, solitary task, can
teddy bears, charging customers a premium even as production lead people to overvalue their (often poorly constructed) crea-
costs are foisted upon them, while farmers offer “haycations,” tions. We call this phenomenon the “IKEA effect,” in honor
in which consumers pay to harvest the food they eat during of the Swedish manufacturer whose products typically arrive
their stay on a farm. Again, while such activities likely serve with some assembly required.
multiple motivations (Leonard, Belk, & Scammon, 2003), the In the studies presented below, we have two primary aims.
notion that labor can increase people's willingness to pay is We first document and explore the magnitude of the IKEA ef-
an underlying theme. fect: the increased valuation that people have for self-

⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 617 496 5853.

E-mail addresses: mnorton@hbs.edu (M.I. Norton), dmochon@tulane.edu (D. Mochon), dandan@duke.edu (D. Ariely).

1057-7408/$ - see front matter © 2011 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002
454 M.I. Norton et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453–460

assembled products compared to objectively similar products value the fruits of that labor—the products they have created.
which they did not assemble. We then explore whether exerting We manipulate the success of labor in several ways to test our
effort is enough to increase valuation or whether completion of model—of theoretical interest to our understanding of the link
a project is necessary for the effect to emerge. between effort and liking, but also of practical interest to mar-
keters considering engaging consumers in co-production—
Labor and love exploring when and why labor leads to love.

Why might people come to overvalue the fruits of their labor?

One hint as to this relationship comes from research which dem- Overview of the experiments
onstrates that, although people rate their jobs as among their least
pleasurable activities, they also rate them as among their most re- In the studies that follow, we demonstrate the IKEA effect
warding (White & Dolan, 2009). This ironic link—between the by encouraging consumers to exert effort in the production of
arduous, unpleasant nature of tasks and their simultaneously re- three different products: building IKEA boxes, folding origa-
warding properties—has received extensive attention by re- mi, and constructing sets of Legos. Experiment 1A demon-
searchers exploring “effort justification.” This research has strates the basic effect, showing that participants who
demonstrated that the more effort people put into some pursuit, assemble utilitarian products value them more highly than
the more they come to value it (Festinger, 1957), in domains as identical pre-assembled products. In Experiment 1B, we repli-
varied as psychotherapy (Axsom & Cooper, 1985) and brain- cate this effect with more hedonic products, and compare par-
washing (Schein, 1956). The link exists for non-humans as ticipants' estimates of the value of their origami creations to
well, with rats and starlings preferring sources of food which re- other's estimates of their value, to benchmark the increased
quire effort to obtain (Kacelnik & Marsh, 2002; Lawrence & Fes- value consumers lend to their self-made creations. In both Ex-
tinger, 1962). Labor leading to value thus appears to be a very periments 2 and 3, we show that effort without completion—
basic process, and an effort justification account predicts that ef- either via assembling and then disassembling a product, or fail-
fort and valuation increase in lockstep. ing to complete the assembly process—does not increase
We suggest that the psychological process by which labor valuation.
leads to love requires consideration of an additional crucial fac-
tor: the extent to which one's labor is successful. Indeed, in
Aronson and Mills (1959) classic experiment on effort justifica- Experiment 1A
tion—in which women were forced to undergo either no initia-
tion, a mild initiation, or a severe initiation before joining a In this first experiment, we establish the IKEA effect—
discussion group—all participants were allowed to successfully consumers' increased valuation for goods they have assembled
join the group, such that the study compared how much those when compared to objectively similar goods not produced by
who had undertaken different levels of effort subsequently the self—by comparing participants' willingness-to-pay and
liked the group they had been allowed to join. Thus the factor liking for utilitarian products they had assembled themselves
that we suggest is crucial for the emergence of the IKEA ef- to identical pre-assembled products.
fect—successful completion of labor—is not varied in this We used a standardized, utilitarian product in Experiment
classic experiment nor in follow-up experiments (e.g., Gerard 1A—IKEA boxes—in order to differentiate our findings from
& Mathewson, 1966). two related literatures. First, firms' increasing tendency to
We base our prediction that the success of one's labor is allow consumers to customize their products, particularly
crucial for the IKEA effect to emerge on a large body of through internet channels (Pine, 1993; Wind & Mahajan,
literature which demonstrates a fundamental human need for 1997), is effective in part because consumers are willing to
effectance—an ability to successfully produce desired out- pay a premium for products that they have customized to their
comes in one's environment; one means by which people ac- idiosyncratic preferences (Franke & Piller, 2004; Schreier,
complish this goal is by affecting and controlling objects and 2006); with standardized IKEA boxes, however, no opportunity
possessions (Ahuvia, 2005; Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992; Furby, for customization exists, suggesting that any increase in valua-
1991). While the desire to assert control over objects can be ful- tion due to labor we observe is likely not due to customization.
filled by destroying them, Bandura's (1977) seminal work on Second, some research suggests that consumers value their self-
self-efficacy specifically points to successful completion of designed products more than those designed by others over and
tasks as one crucial means by which people can meet their goal above the value derived from matching their preferences
to feel competent and in control (see also R. W. White, 1959). In- (Franke, Schreier, & Kaiser, 2010); these studies, however,
deed, just as completing tasks has a positive psychological im- use products that are hedonic and intended for public display
pact, failing to complete tasks has adverse consequences. such as t-shirts, wristwatches, and cell-phone covers—such
People ruminate more on tasks that they fail to complete, leading that the value likely derives in part from the opportunity to
to negative affect and regret (Savitsky, Medvec, & Gilovich, show off one's products to others. We use mundane, utilitarian
1997; Zeigarnik, 1935). products that are intended for private consumption to demon-
Thus our account suggests that it is particularly when people strate that labor can lead to valuation even in the absence of ad-
successfully complete a labor-intensive task that they come to ditional sources of value.
 M.I. Norton et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453–460 455

Method in value our novice participants placed their amateurish crea-

tions to those made by experts.
Participants (N = 52; 20 male, Mage = 19.9, SD = 1.4) at a uni-
versity in the southeastern United States were paid $5. We ran- Method
domly assigned some participants—our builders—to assemble
a plain black IKEA storage box. These participants were given Participants (N = 106; 71 male, Mage = 23.4, SD = 7.6) at a
an unassembled box with the assembly instructions included university in the northeastern United States volunteered to com-
with the product. Other participants—our non-builders—were plete the experiment in a student center; they were told they
given a fully assembled box and were given the opportunity would have a chance to buy an origami creation.
to inspect it. We randomly assigned one set of participants—our builders—
After the initial stage—either building or inspecting the box— to make either an origami crane or an origami frog. We gave par-
we solicited participants' reservation price by asking them to ticipants an instruction sheet (see Fig. 1) and a piece of high-
make a bid on the box. We told them that at the end of the exper- quality origami paper, and participants were given as much time
iment, we would draw a random price (from an unknown distribu- as they wished to complete their creation. After they finished,
tion); if their WTP was equal to or above that price, they would we solicited their reservation price with a variant of the Becker
pay us that amount and take the box, while if their bid was et al. (1964) procedure, asking them to make a bid on their prod-
below the price, they would not purchase the box. This technique, uct between 0 and 100 cents (pretesting revealed that no partici-
a variant of the Becker, DeGroot, and Marschak (1964) proce- pant bid more than $1.00). We told them we would draw a
dure, is an incentive compatible value elicitation method. After random number between 0 and 100; if their number was equal
stating their willingness to pay, participants rated how much to or above that number, they would pay us that amount and
they liked the box on a 7-point scale (1: not at all to 7: very take their creation home, while if their bid was below the number
much), and the extent to which they thought the product was he- we would keep their origami.
donic or utilitarian on a 9-point scale (1: completely utilitarian Before we drew these random numbers, builders completed
to 9: completely hedonic; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). an unrelated experiment in another part of the student center
while we asked a different set of participants—non-builders,
Results and discussion who were blind to both builders' identity and bids—how
much they would pay for our builders' origami, soliciting
As we expected, participants saw the IKEA boxes as more their reservation prices using the same BDM procedure. After
utilitarian than hedonic, rating them (M = 3.13, SD = 1.83) sig- placing their bids, these non-builders were told that the origami
nificantly lower than the midpoint of the scale, t(51) = 7.36, they bid on was actually going to be given to the builder, and
p b .001. they were given origami paper and an instruction sheet as
We found that builders bid significantly more for their boxes compensation.
(M = $0.78, SD = 0.63) than non-builders (M = $0.48, SD = 0.40), Finally, we asked two research assistants with a great deal of
t(50) = 2.12, p b .05. Thus, while both groups were given the experience with origami to make several high quality frogs and
chance to buy the same product, those who assembled their cranes, and asked an additional set of non-builders to bid on
own box were willing to pay a 63% premium compared to these expert creations. We used the same BDM procedure
those who were given the chance to buy an identical pre- such that these non-builders' bids were again incentive
assembled box. We observed similar effects for subjective rat- compatible.
ings of liking for the IKEA box, with builders reporting greater
liking (M = 3.81, SD = 1.56) than non-builders (M = 2.50, Results and discussion
SD = 1.03), t(50) = 3.58, p b .001.
We conducted a 2 (product type: frog or crane) × 3 (bid type:
Experiment 1B: Magnitude participants' bids for their own creations, others' bids for partic-
ipants' creations, others' bids for experts' creations) ANOVA.
Having demonstrated that the IKEA effect occurs even for There was no main effect of product type and no interaction
mundane, utilitarian products, in Experiment 1B we switched with bid type, Fs b .21, ps N .79.
to a new product category to begin to generalize our results. We did, however, observe the predicted main effect of bid
We asked some participants to create either an origami frog type, F(2, 100) = 5.34, p b .01. We expected our builders to
or crane, and offered them a chance to buy these creations value their origami more than others did, and this was the
with their own money. Most importantly, Experiment 1B was case: builders' valuation of their origami (M = $0.23,
designed to benchmark the magnitude of the IKEA effect by SD = 0.25) was nearly five times higher than what non-
comparing participants' willingness-to-pay for their own crea- builders were willing to pay for these creations (M = $0.05,
tions to two different standards. First, we asked a different set SD = 0.07). Thus, while the non-builders saw the amateurish
of participants to bid on our builder's origami, examining creations as nearly worthless crumpled paper, our builders im-
how far above the market price our builders priced their own bued their origami with value. Indeed, builders valued their ori-
creations. Second, we asked experts to make origami and soli- gami so highly they were willing to pay nearly as much for their
cited bids for these creations, allowing us to see how closely own creations as the additional set of non-builders were willing
456 M.I. Norton et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453–460

Fig. 1. Instructions for Experiment 1B.

 M.I. Norton et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453–460 457

to pay for the well-crafted origami made by our experts (M = Our account suggests that the positive impact of effort on
$0.27, SD = 0.26). Non-builders' bids for builders' origami valuation is most likely to occur when that effort results in suc-
were significantly lower than both builders' bids for that cessful completion of a task (Aronson & Mills, 1959; Bandura,
origami and non-builders' bids for expert origami, ts N 2.91, 1977). As an initial test of this hypothesis, we added a new con-
ps b .01, while the latter two bids did not differ, t b 1, p N .45 dition to Experiment 2, in which participants built but then took
(Fig. 2). apart their creations. This “build and unbuild” condition also al-
It is possible, however, that these results do not indicate that lows us to begin to document the important role of task comple-
our participants truly believed that the market price of their cre- tion in the emergence of the IKEA effect. Ariely, Kamenica,
ation was $0.23, but merely that they were willing to overbid and Prelec (2008) demonstrated the demotivating effects of see-
for their creation to avoid losing it. However, we asked an ad- ing one's labor undone by others; in Experiment 2 we examine
ditional set of students (N = 14) to fold origami cranes and col- the value-destroying effects of undoing one's labor oneself. We
lected their bids, and also asked them to estimate what the predicted that builders would value their creations more than
average student at their university would bid for their creation. individuals given pre-built products—but that building and
The bids were strikingly similar, (Mself = $0.19; Mothers = $0.21), then unbuilding products, thereby “undoing” one's successful
t(13) = .45, p N .65, offering some evidence that participants completion of a task, would lead to lower valuations.
truly believed in the value of their creations.
Method
Experiment 2: The role of completion
Participants (N = 118; 49 male, Mage = 19.7, SD = 1.7) were
Experiment 1B suggests that the IKEA effect is large undergraduates and graduate students at a university in the
enough to cause people to value their creations as highly as northeastern United States who were approached in the student
the creations of experts, offering support for the considerable center and dorms. In this experiment, we used sets of Legos of
magnitude of the effect. In Experiment 2, we further explore 10 to 12 pieces. When completed, the sets resembled the shape
the magnitude of the valuation that participants place on their of a helicopter, a bird, a dog, or a duck.
self-made products compared to other products by using a dif- Participants were run in pairs, and were randomly assigned
ferent standard. While Experiment 1B showed that participants' one of the four Lego sets (members of each pair were always
WTP for their own creations was higher than that of dispassion- assigned different sets) and to one of three conditions. In the
ate outside bidders, in Experiment 2 we examine how partici- prebuilt condition, participants were provided with a pre-
pants' bids for their own products compare to their bids for assembled set; in the build condition, participants assembled a
objectively similar products created by others. Our account set themselves; in the unbuild condition, participants built a
holds that participants imbue products they have created with set and then took that set apart.
value, and thus we predict that participants' bids for products All participants were then told to place bids on both their
they complete themselves will be higher than their bids for and their partner's set, and were told that the highest bidder
products that others have completed. In Experiment 2, there- for each would pay their own bid amount and take the set
fore, participants bid for their creations not using the BDM pro- home. Thus, the bidding procedure used in Experiment 2 re-
cedure, but against another participant using a sealed first price quired participants to take into account their own willingness
auction in which each bidder submitted a bid for each product, to pay and their partner's bids—a kind of market price.
where the bidder with the highest bid for each product would
receive that product and pay the price they offered. Results and discussion

$0.40 We conducted a 4 (product type: helicopter, bird, dog, or

duck) × 3 (condition: prebuilt, build, or unbuild)× 2 (bid type:
own Legos or other's Legos) ANOVA, with repeated measures
$0.30 on the final factor. We observed a main effect of set, F(3, 106)
= 6.61, p b .001, such that participants preferred helicopters and
$0.20 birds to dogs and ducks; this variable did not interact with our ma-
nipulations, however, Fs b 1.49, ps N .22, and so we do not dis-
cuss it further.
$0.10 We observed a main effect of bid type, such that across all
three conditions, participants were willing to pay more for the
$0.00 sets that they had been assigned (M = $0.54, SD = 0.69) than
Builders' Non-Builders' Non-Builders' those assigned to their partners (M = $0.33, SD = 0.53), F(1,
Bids on Builders' Bids on Builders' Bids on Experts' 106) = 11.07, p b .01. In addition, we observed a main effect
Origami Origami Origami
of condition, F(2, 106) = 7.68, p b .01, such that bids overall
Fig. 2. Mean WTP from Experiment 1B. Builders bid more for their creations were highest in the build condition than in the unbuild and pre-
than did non-builders asked to bid on those creations, valuing them nearly as built conditions. Importantly, however, these two main effects
much as the market valued the creations of origami experts. were qualified by the predicted interaction between bid type
458 M.I. Norton et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453–460

and condition, F(2, 106) = 3.20, p b .05, indicating that the mag- in Experiment 1A. Finally, participants were asked to rate the
nitude of the difference in bids was impacted by our manipula- extent to which they were a “do-it-yourself” person (DIYer),
tions (Table 1). Only in the build condition, as predicted, were on a 7-point scale (1: not at all a do-it-yourself person to 7:
participants' bids for their own creation significantly higher very much a do-it-yourself person).
than their bids for their partners' creations, t(39) = 3.08,
p b .01; in fact, their bids for their own were twice as high as Results and discussion
their bids for their partners'. Building and then “unbuilding”
sets, however, caused this difference to become non- As predicted, builders bid significantly more for their boxes
significant, t(39) = 1.20, p = .23. This negative effect of destroy- (M = $1.46, SD = 1.46) than incomplete builders (M = $0.59,
ing one's labor is particularly notable given that Lego sets are SD = 0.70), t(37) = 2.35, p b .05. Thus, while both groups were
designed to be assembled and taken apart, and participants given the chance to buy the identical product, those who were
could have quickly and easily reassembled their set had they given the chance to complete their creation imbued it with sig-
bid enough to own it. Bids for the two sets in the prebuilt con- nificantly more value—and were willing to pay more than
dition were also not significantly different, t(37) = 1.30, p = .20. twice as much to keep it.
We conducted a regression predicting WTP with condition,
Experiment 3: The role of incompletion self-rating on the DIY scale, and the interaction. Reflective of
the above analyses, there was a significant effect of build con-
Experiment 2 demonstrated that building and then unbuild- dition, β = .44, p b .05. Not surprisingly, there was a marginally
ing one's creations caused the IKEA effect to dissipate. To fur- significant effect of participants' DIY rating, β = .35, p = .06,
ther test the role of task completion in the impact of effort on such that DIYers valued the boxes more highly. There was no
valuation, in Experiment 3 we allowed some participants to evidence of an interaction between condition and DIY rating,
build an IKEA box, while others were allowed to complete β = .09, p N .60, suggesting that both DIYers and non-DIYers
only half of the steps to complete the box. We expected, consis- showed an increase in valuation when completing their prod-
tent with results from Experiment 2, that failing to finish a ucts (Fig. 3).
product would lead to lower valuations than completing it. In
addition, we measured participants' general interest in building General discussion
things themselves—asking them to rate the extent to which
they were “do-it-yourself” people—in order to examine wheth- In four experiments, we demonstrated the existence and
er the boost in valuation from completing the box occurred for magnitude of the IKEA effect, which occurs for both utilitarian
all consumers regardless of their stated interest. and hedonic products, and is sufficient in magnitude that con-
sumers believe that their self-made products rival those of ex-
Method perts. Adding to previous literature on effort justification, we
also show that successful completion is an essential component
Participants (N = 39; 16 male, Mage = 21.5, SD = 2.4) at a uni- for the link between labor and liking to emerge; participants
versity in the southeastern United States were paid $5. We ran- who built and then unbuilt their creations, or were not per-
domly assigned some participants—our builders—to assemble mitted to finish those creations, did not show an increase in
an IKEA storage box. These participants were given an unas- willingness-to-pay. In addition, by using simple IKEA boxes
sembled box with the assembly instructions that come with
the product. Other participants—our incomplete builders—
were given the same unassembled box with the same instruc-
tions, but were asked to stop before completing the last two
steps. Thus these participants also worked on their box, but
were not able to complete their creation; note that participants
in this condition had all of the pieces needed to complete the
box, and little effort would be required on their part to complete
the box if they chose to purchase it.
After the initial stage, we solicited participants' willingness-
to-pay price by using the same incentive-compatible method as

Table 1
Mean WTP from Experiment 2. Participants valued their Lego sets more than
their partners' when they built them compared to when they received prebuilt
sets, or when they built and unbuilt their set.
Condition Bid on own Bid on other Difference Fig. 3. Mean WTP from Experiment 3. Builders bid more for their creations
than did incomplete-builders. People who rated themselves as high DIY (one
Prebuilt $.32 $.26 $.06
standard deviation above the mean) bid more than those who rated themselves
Build $.84 $.42 $.42
as low DIY (one standard deviation below the mean). There was no interaction
Unbuild $.43 $.29 $.14
between these two factors.
 M.I. Norton et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453–460 459

and Lego sets that did not permit customization, we demon- approach is not without its critics (e.g., Zwick, Bonsu, & Darmody,
strated that the IKEA effect does not arise solely as a result of 2008). The challenge for marketers lies in convincing consumers to
participants' idiosyncratic tailoring of their creations to their engage in the kinds of labor that will lead them to value products
preferences. more highly. One intriguing possibility comes from Gibbs and
What psychological mechanisms underlie the increase in val- Drolet (2003), who show that elevating consumer energy levels
uation when participants self-assemble their products? Several re- can induce consumers to choose consumption experiences that re-
lated phenomena bear closer scrutiny as possible drivers of the quire more effort. At the same time, however, companies should
IKEA effect. First, previous research demonstrates that people also be careful to create tasks that are not too difficult as to lead
prefer goods with which they have been endowed (Kahneman, to an inability to complete the task; again, our results demonstrate
Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990; Langer, 1975), raising the possibility that labor leads to love only when that labor is successful. For ex-
that overvaluation may be due merely to ownership of products ample, Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom, and Brown (2005) emphasize the
rather than effort expended in creating them. Second, research importance of providing consumers with clear guidelines on how
suggests that greater time spent touching objects can increase to engage with self-service technologies, while Dahl and Moreau
feelings of ownership and value (Peck & Shu, 2009). In Experi- (2007) suggest that placing some constraints on the amount of cre-
ment 2, however, participants in the “build and unbuild” condi- ativity that consumers can express leads them to be more satisfied
tion both spent more time and had more contact with the with their eventual creations.
product than those in the “build” condition—but reported a We note that some research suggests that these same princi-
lower WTP. As a result, shorter time and less contact led to higher ples apply not only to designing tasks for consumers, but also
evaluations, consistent with our account and inconsistent with an jobs for employees. Many studies point to the motivational bene-
explanation centered on the endowment effect or touch. fits of assigning employees to tasks they feel capable of complet-
If these explanations are unlikely to account for our effects, ing (Grant & Parker, 2009; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Shirky
what process underlies the IKEA effect? In the Introduction, we (2008), for example, offers the initial call for programmers to
suggested that the increase in liking that occurs due to effort contribute their (unpaid) labor to creating the open source
(Aronson & Mills, 1959) coupled with the positive feelings of Linux operating system as an example of a successful pitch for
effectance that accompany successful completion of tasks (Ban- labor; programmers were encouraged to make small, manageable
dura, 1977) is an important driver of the increase in willingness contributions, such that the intimidating scope of the total labor
to pay that we observe. It is possible and even likely that building needed was deemphasized (see Bergquest (2003) and Kelty
products increases both thoughts about the positive attributes of (2008) for alternative views of the success of open source ini-
that product (Ariely & Simonson, 2003; Carmon, Wertenbroch, tiatives). Unlike with people building their own products,
& Zeelenberg, 2003; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000) and positive af- however, initiatives requiring such joint contributions may
fect and emotional attachment to that product (e.g., McGraw, Tet- spread ownership across multiple parties, thereby diluting the
lock, & Kristel, 2003), both of which have been shown to impact of labor on any one's contributor's liking for that
influence WTP. In addition, self-assembly of products may initiative.
allow people to both feel competent and display evidence of Finally, we note that we used generally small ticket items;
that competence—their creation—thus permitting them to signal the question of whether the IKEA effect occurs for more expen-
desired attributes to themselves and others (Franke et al., 2010; sive items is important both practically and theoretically. While
Spence, 1973). Finally, saving money by buying products that re- future research should empirically examine the magnitude of
quire some assembly may induce positive feelings associated overvaluation as a function of price, we suggest that, even for
with being a “smart shopper” (Schindler, 1998). While further ex- very costly items, people may continue to see the products of
ploration of these factors is needed, we suggest that the role of their labor as more valuable than others do. For instance, people
these factors is likely to vary by the type of product being assem- may see the improvements they have made to their homes—
bled. For instance, compared to origami and Legos, the boring, such as the brick walkways they laid by hand—as increasing
utilitarian IKEA boxes we use in Experiments 1A and 3 have the value of the house far more than buyers, who see only a
few attributes on which to elaborate, are unlikely to prompt shoddily-built walkway. Indeed, to the extent that labor one
deep emotional attachment, and offer little opportunity for brag- puts into one's home reflects one's own idiosyncratic tastes,
ging rights; indeed, the social utility gained from displaying prod- such as kitchen tiling behind the sink that quotes bible verses,
ucts decreases as product complexity decreases (Thompson & labor might actually lead to lower valuation by buyers, who
Norton, 2011). see only bible verses that must be expunged—even as that
Our exploration of the value that participants attach to their labor leads the owner to raise the selling price.
own labor is part of a broader trend in research exploring the psy-
chology underlying consumer involvement, as companies have
shifted in recent years from viewing customers as recipients of References
value to viewing them as co-creators of value (Holbrook &
Hirschman, 1982; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000; Vargo & Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers'
identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 171–184.
Lusch, 2004). Companies now actively involve consumers in Ariely, D., Kamenica, E., & Prelec, D. (2008). Man's search for meaning: The
the design, marketing and testing of products (Bateson, 1985; case of Legos. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67,
Lengnick-Hall, 1996; Mills & Morris, 1986)—though this 671–677.
460 M.I. Norton et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 453–460

Ariely, D., & Simonson, I. (2003). Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? Kelty, C. (2008). Two bits: The cultural significance of free software. Durham,
Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. Journal of NC: Duke University Press.
Consumer Psychology, 13, 113–123. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for Psychology, 32, 311–328.
a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181. Lawrence, D. H., & Festinger, L. (1962). Deterrents and reinforcement. The
Axsom, D., & Cooper, J. (1985). Cognitive dissonance and psychotherapy: The psychology of insufficient reward. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
role of effort justification in inducing weight loss. Journal of Experimental Lengnick-Hall, C. (1996). Customer contributions to quality: A different view
Social Psychology, 21, 149–160. of the customer-oriented firm. Academy of Management Review, 21,
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral 791–824.
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Leonard, H., Belk, R. W., & Scammon, D. L. (2003). Helping others, creating
Bateson, J. E. G. (1985). Self-service consumer: An exploratory study. Journal yourself: Understanding volunteer vacations. In D. Turley, & S. Brown
of Retailing, 61, 49–75. (Eds.), European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6. (pp. 264)
Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, IX. (pp. 226–232). McGraw, A. P., Tetlock, P., & Kristel, O. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Re-
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer lational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research,
Research, 15, 139–168. 30, 219–229.
Bergquest, M. (2003). Open-source software development as gift culture: Work Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing
and identity formation in an internet community. In C. Garsten, & H. Wulff among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer
(Eds.), New technologies at work: People, screens and social virtuality trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.
(pp. 223–241). Oxford: Berg. Mills, P. K., & Morris, J. H. (1986). Clients as “partial” employees of service orga-
Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Option attachment: nizations: Role development in client participation. Academy of Management
When deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. Journal of Consumer Review, 11, 726–735.
Research, 30, 15–29. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership.
Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434–447.
enjoy constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competi-
357–369. tion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence.
utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60–71. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79–87.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to Savitsky, K., Medvec, V. H., & Gilovich, T. (1997). Remembering and regretting:
be. New York: St. Martin's Press. The Zeigarnik effect and the cognitive availability of regrettable actions and in-
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 248–257.
University Press. Schein, E. H. (1956). The Chinese indoctrination program for prisoners of war:
Franke, N., & Piller, F. (2004). Value creation by toolkits for user innovation A study of attempted brainwashing. Psychiatry, 19, 149–172.
and design: The case of the watch market. Journal of Product Innovation Schindler, R. M. (1998). Consequences of perceiving oneself as responsible for
Management, 21, 401–415. obtaining a discount: Evidence for smart-shopper feelings. Journal of Consumer
Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010). The “I designed it myself” effect Psychology, 7, 371–392.
in mass customization. Management Science, 56, 125–140. Schreier, M. (2006). The value increment of mass-customized products: An em-
Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology of possession and owner- pirical assessment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 317–327.
ship: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress. Journal of Social Shapiro, L. (2004). Something from the oven: Reinventing dinner in 1950s
Behavior & Personality, 66, 457–463. America. New York: Viking.
Gerard, H. B., & Mathewson, G. C. (1966). The effects of severity of initiation on Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without or-
liking for a group: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, ganizations. New York: Penguin Press.
2, 278–287. Spence, A. M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Gibbs, B., & Drolet, A. (2003). Consumption effort: The mental cost of gener- 87, 355–374.
ating utility and the role of consumer energy level in ambitious consump- Thompson, D. V., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The social utility of feature creep.
tion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 93–107. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 555–565.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving a new dominant logic for market-
of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, ing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.
273–331. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.
work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, White, M. P., & Dolan, P. (2009). Accounting for the richness of daily activi-
16, 250–279. ties. Psychological Science, 20, 1000–1008.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of con- Wind, J., & Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and opportunities in new product develop-
sumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer ment: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,
Research, 9, 132–140. 1–12.
Kacelnik, A., & Marsh, B. (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal Zeigarnik, B. (1935). On finished and unfinished tasks. In K. Lewin (Ed.), A dynamic
Behaviour, 63, 245–250. theory of personality (pp. 300–314). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting consumers to work:
endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, ‘Co-creation’ and new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer
98, 1325–1348. Culture, 8, 163–196.