Psychology says people who name their possessions tend to show greater anthropomorphism, revealing how the human mind can give ordinary objects identities, emotions and deeper personal meaning

You may know someone who has given a name to their car, talks about their laptop as if it has a personality, or refuses to throw away an old stuffed toy because it has “been with them forever.” At first glance, it can seem like nothing more than a quirky habit. But psychologists have found that putting a human name on an ordinary object may be connected to a much broader feature of the human mind: our tendency to see human qualities in things that are not human.

That tendency is known as anthropomorphism. And research suggests that people who name their possessions may be somewhat more inclined toward it.

The psychology behind giving an object a name

In a 2021 study titled “The Influence of Anthropomorphism on Giving Personal Names to Objects,” published in Advances in Cognitive Psychology, psychologist Serge Brédart examined whether naming personal possessions was associated with seeing those objects in human-like ways.

Brédart surveyed 130 participants, asking whether they had ever given a personal name to an object during adulthood. Those who had were also asked whether they had attributed psychological characteristics to the object.

The researcher then compared participants' scores on a measure of anthropomorphism. The result was striking: participants who had given specific names to objects scored significantly higher in anthropomorphism than those who had never done so.

That does not mean that naming a car “Betty” means someone genuinely believes the car is alive. In fact, Brédart found an important qualification: around 40% of the participants who had named an object said they did not attribute psychological qualities to it. In other words, a person can name a possession without imagining that it has thoughts, emotions or intentions.

A name can make an object feel less like “a thing”

Giving something a personal name changes how we mentally identify it. Instead of thinking about “the old car,” someone might think about “Charlie.” Instead of “my childhood teddy bear,” it becomes a particular individual with a history attached to it.

That distinction matters because our relationships with possessions are not always based on their practical usefulness. Some objects accumulate memories.

A battered suitcase may recall a first trip abroad. A watch might have belonged to a parent. An old bicycle may represent childhood independence. Even an ordinary coffee mug can become associated with years of routines.

When objects start carrying emotional value

Research by Cathy Kwok, Jessica R. Grisham and Melissa M. Norberg helps explain this connection. Their 2018 study, “Object Attachment: Humanness Increases Sentimental and Instrumental Values,” published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions, investigated the relationship between anthropomorphism, the value people assign to objects and attachment to possessions.

The researchers studied 331 participants with excessive acquisition tendencies and measured how human-like they perceived objects, along with the sentimental and practical value they assigned to them.

They found that stronger anthropomorphism predicted greater sentimental and instrumental value, which in turn predicted stronger attachment to objects. That offers an intriguing explanation for why an apparently ordinary possession can become difficult to replace.

If an object feels more human-like, it may become more than something that performs a function. It can become associated with memories, personal meaning and emotional significance.

It may explain why some possessions feel irreplaceable

Consider two identical watches. One is brand new and bought yesterday. The other belonged to someone you loved and accompanied you through important moments in your life. Objectively, they may perform exactly the same function. Psychologically, they are not equivalent.

The second watch carries a personal history. Its value is no longer simply determined by what it can do. It has become connected to experiences and memories that cannot simply be transferred to another watch.

Naming an object may therefore be one small expression of this broader process.

But naming something is not a psychological diagnosis

The research does not show that people who name possessions are lonely, emotionally dependent or experiencing a psychological problem. Nor does it establish that naming an object itself causes stronger attachment.

Brédart's study found an association between object naming and greater anthropomorphism, while the study by Kwok, Grisham and Norberg found that stronger anthropomorphism was associated with greater sentimental and instrumental value and, ultimately, stronger object attachment.

Taken together, however, the findings point toward something fascinating about ordinary human behaviour. Sometimes, we don't simply own our possessions, we give them identities, attach memories to them and gradually weave them into our personal stories.

And when an old object has a name, that name may be a tiny clue that we no longer see it as merely an object, but as something that occupies a particular place in our lives.