Should Your Possessions Define You?

“It’s All About Behavior:”

I love that people are proving this concept, but I also dislike that people are proving this concept in one specific way right now. 

Over and over I read these articles and accounts of people attacking Tesla cars/trucks and their owners are being accused of being Nazi’s!  Likewise, the people that are doing it are now being labeled “domestic terrorists.”  What the heck is going on here?  Is this really terrorism or are there social and psychological phenomena happening that society is labeling as terrorism?  Let’s look at what is really happening here when it comes to this behavior. 

Burned Tesla Brand Car - Photo by AP

Symbolic Attribution:

This is a psychological phenomenon known as symbolic attribution, where people assign personality traits, beliefs, or values to someone based on the objects they own (Belk, 1988). Whether it's a specific car, clothing brand, or smartphone, these possessions serve as social signals—a sort of heuristic, shortcut, or assumption our brains use to categorize others quickly. 

It shows up when we assign personality traits, values, or even political ideologies to others based solely on what they own or wear.  The car (like a Tesla), the shoes (shoes can carry a lot of symbolic weight, especially when it comes to status, identity, and social signaling), the laptop or type of phone (or latest model)—they become symbols. And then those symbols determine how we treat or behave toward those people. 

Here's the problem? 

When people start treating these symbolic attributions or heuristics, shortcuts, or assumptions as facts, this causes us to create a bias for or against the person.  Even before there is any observed or demonstrated behavior by that person.  This makes us operate with our already preconceived label, not an open objective evaluation.  Unfortunately, these shortcuts can turn into object-based stereotypes—broad generalizations about people based on perceived meaning associated with material items (Berger & Heath, 2007). This isn’t just faulty logic; it’s also a form of internal communication filter that distorts reality and damages dialogue.

Owning a Tesla car doesn’t make someone “woke” or “elitist,” (the pre-DOGE symbolic attribution) or a “Nazi” (post-DOGE symbolic attribution). 

But this isn’t restricted to cars.  Shoes and bags or backpacks, can absolutely function as social status symbols and generate symbolic attribution, especially in professional, travel, tech, and luxury fashion circles.  A specific pair of shoes like Gucci, doesn’t mean someone is “trend-savvy, elite, or have a luxury lifestyle.”  A backpack or bag from Louis Vuitton or TUMI brand doesn’t tell you how someone leads, follows, or collaborates.

It's Because We Are Social Creatures

This process often draws from social identity theory, where group symbols (like a Tesla) are interpreted through the lens of in-group/out-group dynamics (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). If someone perceives the car as representing an “elite” or “ideological” out-group, they may impose negative traits on the owner as a defense mechanism or act of distancing.  This is exactly what we’re seeing in all of these instances it’s described in the Halo and Horn Effect.

The Halo and Horn Effects describe a cognitive bias where one prominent trait—positive or negative—unfairly influences our entire perception of a person. The Halo Effect occurs when a single favorable characteristic, such as attractiveness or confidence, leads us to assume the individual possesses other positive qualities, like intelligence or competence (Thorndike, 1920).

Conversely, the Horn Effect happens when a negative trait, such as disheveled appearance or a blunt communication style, causes us to attribute unrelated negative traits, such as laziness or rudeness. These biases often override objective evaluation and can distort hiring decisions, assessments of leadership competence, and interpersonal relationships. Recognizing these effects is crucial in developing fair, behavior-based judgment—ensuring we see people for their actions and capabilities, not just for the most visible or emotionally charged attribute.

So, what should happen? 

Behavior should speak louder than symbols, brands, or even words.  As leaders, followers, teammates, and professionals, we must recognize when we’re letting objects define people—and challenge or resist that reaction. The true character of someone is in how they act (which is reflective of their instrumental and terminal values), not what they carry, wear or drive.

Resisting the urge to engage in symbolic attribution begins with awareness and intentionality. Symbolic attribution occurs when we assign traits to individuals based on the objects they possess, such as cars, clothing, or technology (Belk, 1988). Recognizing this cognitive shortcut allows individuals to pause and question their assumptions. Replacing assumptions with curiosity—asking, “What’s this person’s story?”—shifts focus from possessions to behavior. Practicing mindfulness can also help interrupt snap judgments, creating space to evaluate someone based on their actions rather than symbolic cues (Kang et al., 2014).

Leaders, exemplary followers, liminal leaders, and professionals can strengthen this practice by emphasizing behavior over appearance, possessions, brands, etc.  Evaluating others based on behavior, i.e., how they treat others, solve problems, communicate, collaborate—rather than the brands they wear—aligns with evidence-based leadership/followership and bias-reduction strategies (Berger & Heath, 2007).  Furthermore, reflecting on personal bias triggers and seeking diverse interactions help disrupt the false links between linking identity and objects. Over time, shifting attention from symbols to behavior and performance builds more equitable, respectful, and effective relationships.

Let’s shift from symbolic attribution to behavioral-based observations and evaluations of people and learn who they really are by their character and behaviors.   That’s where real leadership, effective followership—and real connection—begins.

#Leadership #BehavioralScience #BiasAwareness #WorkplaceCulture #Followership #LeadershipDevelopment #PsychologyAtWork #Judgment #LinkedInWisdom #PerceptionVsReality

Reference:

• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154

• Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/519142

• Kang, Y., Gray, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). The nondiscrimination heart: Lovingkindness meditation training decreases implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1306–1313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034150

• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

• Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663