Money you could touch: cash and psychological ownership

Abstract

Purpose Despite evidence that cashless payment modes influence spending behavior, researchers have yet to explain the underlying mechanism. Cash serves as a store of value, and transactions involve the transference of ownership in circulation. This study aims to unpack why the physical and visceral nature of cash embodies psychological ownership and how the physicality of cash attenuates the awareness of spending, curtailing instinctive and unnecessary spending. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on data collected in 2013 in New Zealand, the authors conducted another study in the quite different context of China in September 2023, using identical semistructured discussion protocols. The data from 2013 involved five focus group sessions containing at least six participants, involving 31 adults who also completed an open-ended questionnaire immediately before the group discussion commenced. The data collection in 2023 used the same open-ended and semistructured discussion protocol used in 2013, resulting in 180 adult open-ended responses – a nonprobability criterion-based purposive sampling guided participant selection in the 2013 and 2023 studies. Findings Findings reveal that psychological ownership does manifest in the app more than in the ownership of money itself. People felt happy, confident, safe and secure while using apps that stored their money. Physical attributes of cash result from sensory perceptions of handling, counting and touching cash and coins. A sense of psychological ownership heightens spending awareness and ramifies spending behavior. The research found sadness and guilt as negative emotions when parting with money. Originality/value This study offers empirical support to explain why psychological ownership of cash regulates spending and why the psychological processes that underlie “owned” money interrupt the spending with cash.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.