Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect

The paper investigates why consumers value self-created products more than identical products made by others (the IKEA effect) and under what conditions people seek opportunities to create. The authors propose that self-creation fulfills a psychological need to signal competence to oneself and to others. They hypothesize that (a) feelings of competence associated with self-created products mediate their increased valuation, (b) affirming the self reduces the incremental value derived from self-creation, and (c) threatening competence increases the propensity to engage in self-creation. The study situates these questions within the broader rise of consumer co-creation and examines whether the IKEA effect persists for mundane, non-customized products and beyond enjoyment or functional fit.

Prior work shows multiple benefits of co-creation: better functional fit through customization, increased utility from uniqueness, and enjoyment of the creative process. Even after controlling for these, consumers overvalue their own creations (e.g., the IKEA effect). Theoretically, identity and self-signaling research suggests people use actions to learn about and affirm desired identities. Effectance theory posits a need to produce desired outcomes and control possessions; thus, self-created products can signal competence to self and others. Products can serve as identity signals, including competence signaling (e.g., feature-rich electronics). Pride is linked to competence and success and has been shown to mediate valuation in self-design contexts. Self-affirmation theory suggests that affirming one domain can reduce the need to affirm another via compensatory processes; thus, self-affirmation should attenuate reliance on self-created products to signal competence, whereas threats should increase it. The paper integrates these streams to predict competence-driven valuation and behavior in co-creation.

The research comprises four experiments.

• Experiment 1: Participants (N=79; 33 male; 4 excluded for incomplete responses or extreme outlier; analyzed N=75) were randomly assigned to build a LEGO car (builders) or receive it pre-assembled to examine (non-builders). Willingness to pay (WTP) was elicited using an incentive-compatible Becker–DeGroot–Marschak (BDM) method. Feelings of competence were measured via two 7-point items: pride in the product and intention to show it off (averaged; r=.33, p<.01). Mood was measured using the PANAS to create positive and negative affect indices. Analyses included t-tests and mediation (Baron & Kenny; Sobel tests), and multiple-mediator models (Preacher & Hayes) to compare competence versus mood as mediators.
• Experiment 2: Undergraduate participants (N=135; 16 excluded—11 failed the self-affirmation ranking task, 5 incomplete; analyzed N=119) in a 2 (self-affirmation: none vs. affirmation) × 2 (build: pre-built vs. build) between-subjects design. Self-affirmation followed Sherman et al. (2000): participants ranked 11 values, then wrote about their top value (affirmation) or ninth-ranked value (control). The target product was an IKEA Kassett storage box: pre-built vs. built by participants using IKEA instructions. WTP was elicited with BDM on a $0–$2 scale in $0.10 increments; a square-root transform addressed skew. Competence was measured as in Experiment 1 (r=.47, p<.001). Analyses included ANOVA, moderated mediation (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007), and conditional indirect effects.
• Experiment 3A: Online participants (N=75; 42 male) were randomly assigned to a competence manipulation: easy (high-competence) vs. very difficult (low-competence) multiple-choice math problems (4 items; skipping allowed). Manipulation check: accuracy rates. Outcome: preference to assemble vs. receive pre-assembled for an IKEA bookcase.
• Experiment 3B: Online participants (N=41; 24 male) completed one easy vs. one difficult math item (as in 3A). Then chose between a pre-assembled Target table and an IKEA table requiring assembly; images were counterbalanced. Manipulation check: accuracy. Primary analyses used chi-square tests to compare choice proportions across competence conditions.

• Experiment 1: Builders had higher WTP than non-builders for the same LEGO car (M=$1.20, SD=1.35 vs. M=$0.57, SD=.76; t(73)=2.44, p<.05). Builders reported higher competence (M=4.39, SD=1.48) than non-builders (M=2.81, SD=1.34; t(73)=4.85, p<.001). Competence correlated with WTP (r=.36, p<.01) and mediated the build effect on WTP: build→WTP significant alone (B=.62, SE=.26; t(73)=2.44, p<.05) but non-significant controlling for competence (B=.29, SE=.28; t(72)=1.02, p=.30); mediator significant (B=.21, SE=.09; t(72)=2.35, p<.05); Sobel Z=2.08, p<.05. Builders showed higher positive affect (M=2.80, SD=.73) than non-builders (M=2.30, SD=.91; t(73)=2.61, p=.01), with competence mediating build→positive affect (Sobel Z=2.05, p<.05). Negative affect did not differ. In multiple-mediator tests, competence mediated build→WTP (Sobel Z=2.01, p<.05) whereas positive mood did not (Sobel Z=.39, p=.70).
• Experiment 2: ANOVA showed a significant interaction between self-affirmation and build (F(1,115)=3.90, p=.05). No-affirmation condition replicated the IKEA effect: builders WTP M=$0.72 (SD=.45) vs. non-builders M=$0.46 (SD=.50); t(52)=1.99, p=.05. In the self-affirmation condition, the effect was eliminated: builders M=$0.49 (SD=.46) vs. non-builders M=$0.58 (SD=.46); t(63)=.71, p=.48. Competence ratings were higher for builders overall (main effect F(1,115)=19.8, p<.001), with an interaction (F(1,115)=5.8, p<.05): no-affirmation builders M=3.39 (SD=1.62) vs. pre-built M=1.76 (SD=1.01); t(52)=4.55, p<.001; in affirmation, build vs. pre-built was not significant (M_build=2.57 vs. M_pre-built=2.09; t(63)=1.53, p=.13). Moderated mediation showed build→competence (B=1.63, p<.001), qualified by interaction with affirmation (B=−1.15, p<.05). Competence predicted WTP (B=.12, p<.001); direct build effects dropped (B=.07, p=.59; interaction B=−.21, p=.22). Conditional indirect effect via competence was significant in no-affirmation (B=.19, SE=.07; Z=2.80, p<.01) and non-significant in affirmation (B=.06, SE=.04; Z=1.34, p=.18).
• Experiment 3A: Manipulation check: high-competence accuracy 92% vs. low-competence 22% (chance-level). Preference to assemble increased under low competence: 58% vs. 33% in high competence; χ²(1)=4.72, p<.05.
• Experiment 3B: Manipulation check: high-competence accuracy 96% vs. low-competence 26%. Choice of IKEA (assembly required) was higher under low competence: 74% vs. 27% under high competence; χ²(1)=8.79, p<.01. Across studies, competence feelings mediate increased valuation from self-creation, self-affirmation attenuates the effect, and competence threats increase preferences for assembly/self-creation.

The findings support the central hypothesis that self-created products are valued more because they enable consumers to signal and experience competence. Experiment 1 shows that competence (operationalized via pride and intention to show off) mediates the increased WTP for self-created products and also elevates positive affect, while general mood does not account for valuation differences. Experiment 2 demonstrates that when the need to affirm competence is satisfied through self-affirmation, both competence feelings from building and the IKEA effect on WTP are attenuated, indicating that the signaling motive is instrumental. Experiments 3A and 3B reveal that competence threats shift behavior toward greater willingness to assemble or choose products requiring assembly, suggesting consumers use co-creation to restore a shaken sense of competence. Together, the results indicate that self-creation serves both self-signaling and social-signaling functions, though the relative weight of each likely varies by context and product displayability. Practically, firms can leverage competence motives to encourage co-creation, but should recognize that benefits are realized especially when consumers successfully complete tasks and when competence motives are salient. The work also clarifies that the IKEA effect is not merely a byproduct of positive mood but arises from competence-related appraisals tied to one’s creation.

This research advances understanding of the IKEA effect by identifying competence as a key psychological mechanism. It shows that assembling products increases feelings of competence, which in turn increases valuation; that self-affirmation can reduce the incremental value of self-creation; and that competence threats increase the desire to engage in self-creation. Contributions include integrating identity signaling, effectance, and self-affirmation theories to explain co-creation’s appeal, and demonstrating effects with mundane, non-customized products. Future research should disentangle the relative roles of self-focused pride versus social display motives across product categories and social contexts, examine how making social display opportunities salient modulates effects, identify strategies for firms to encourage co-creation without incurring backlash from failures, and explore broader well-being implications of engaging in effortful, competence-affirming activities.

The documented valuation boost is retrospective and contingent on successful completion of assembly; consumers are often reluctant to assemble absent a competence threat, limiting proactive adoption. Co-creation failures may be attributed to firms, harming perceptions. The studies focus on mundane products and did not provide opportunities to publicly display creations, so generalizability to highly visible/display-oriented products and social contexts may differ. The work aggregates pride and show-off intent into a single competence measure; the relative contributions of self- versus other-directed signaling remain to be isolated in future research.