Contemporary consumers, societies, and ecologies face many challenges to well-being. Consumer researchers have responded with new attention to what engenders happiness and flourishing, particularly as a function of consuming more wisely. Consumer wisdom has been conceptualized as the pursuit of well-being through the application of six interrelated dimensions: Responsibility, Purpose, Flexibility, Perspective, Reasoning, and Sustainability (Luchs, Mick, and Haws 2020). However, up to now, the roles of marketing management and government policies with respect to enabling and supporting consumer wisdom have not been thoroughly and systematically considered. To do so, we adopt an integrative approach based on a range of theoretical and empirical insights from both wisdom research in the social sciences and in consumer research. We weave those insights into the stages of an expanded version of the circular economy model of the value cycle, within which we also include the traditional four Ps of the marketing mix. This approach allows us to identify how marketing practices and public policies can enable and support consumer wisdom, resulting in advancements to well-being and the common good as well as restorations to the missions and reputations of business and government.

Healthcare exchange often contains peril for consumers because of numerous barriers to financial well‐being (FWB). Rather than ruing specific agendas of healthcare policy, we embrace a neutral and immediately actionable approach. The authors promote gains in healthcare's current composition by empowering consumers to be proactive, where possible, in reducing power inequities and improving their own FWB. As such, the authors identify primary barriers to the FWB of healthcare consumers and propose individual opportunities within the existing healthcare structure that are likely to improve fiscal outcomes. Moreover, the current research demonstrates collaborative paths wherein power‐holders (i.e., practitioner, researcher, consumer, government) can collaborate toward and/or contribute to the same financial health. A proposed theoretical framework, with foundations of power‐responsibility equilibrium and transformative service research, gives rise to future research directions. This research is intended to provide a foundation for healthcare and FWB thought/action, and to guide coming scholarly offerings.

Purpose This study aims to add to the gift giving literature by examining how the wealth of a recipient impacts giver spending. The authors tested the hypotheses that givers spend more on wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients, partially because givers anticipate a greater difference in gift-liking across expensive and cheap gifts when the recipient is wealthy, and partially because givers are more motivated to signal that they are of high financial status when the recipient is wealthy. The authors also tested whether givers’ tendency to spend more on wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients attenuates when the recipient is someone with whom the giver has a negative (vs positive) relationship. Design/methodology/approach Eight experimental studies tested the hypotheses. These studies had participants act as givers, consider giving a gift to either a wealthy or unwealthy recipient and indicate how much money they would spend on the gift. Some studies included additional measures to test potential mediators, while another included an additional manipulation to test a potential boundary condition. Findings Gift givers spend more on gifts for wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients, for two main reasons. On the one hand, givers are influenced by an other-oriented motive – they wish for their gift to be well-liked by the recipient and anticipate a greater difference in recipient gift-liking across expensive and cheap gifts when the recipient is wealthy. On the other hand, givers are influenced by a self-oriented motive – they wish to signal to the recipient that they are of high financial status, but this desire is stronger when the recipient is wealthy. Critically, givers are relatively unlikely to spend more on wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients when they have a negative (vs positive) relationship with the recipient. Research limitations/implications The authors studied how the wealth of the gift recipient influences givers’ gift expenditure, but they did not examine the recipient’s perspective. Future research could address this by exploring whether recipients’ gift preferences vary based on their wealth. Practical implications Gift purchases account for a significant portion of worldwide consumer spending, making gift giving an important topic for consumers and marketers alike. The present research sheds light on a factor that has a notable impact on how much consumers spend on a gift when faced with a gift giving decision. Originality/value This manuscript contributes to the gift giving literature by exploring an important aspect that influences consumer gift expenditure (the wealth of the recipient), demonstrating a novel gift giving phenomenon [that givers spend more when giving to relatively wealthy (vs unwealthy) recipients], and shedding new light on the psychology of consumers in gift giving contexts (namely, how givers’ perceptions of recipient gift-liking, their desire to send signals of high financial status and their relationship with the recipient can influence their gifting decisions).

Pain of payment is the negative psychological affect consumers experience when they become cognizant that they have lost a certain amount of their financial resources (immediate pain) or when they become aware that they will or may lose a certain amount of their financial resources in the future (anticipated pain). Pain of payment plays a significant role in consumer decision making and has attracted substantial scholarly interest in recent years. In this article, we conduct a systematic literature review of the existing work on pain of payment. We advance theory in the field by proposing a new organizing framework that summarizes the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of pain of payment. Furthermore, we provide a formal definition of pain of payment that encompasses all facets of this construct. Subsequently, we identify knowledge gaps and outline research questions that could be explored to improve our understanding of this construct and advance consumer psychology.

No abstract