Buying happiness: How brand engagement in self‐concept affects purchase happiness

The experience recommendation prescribes a disadvantage to material purchases, suggesting that spending on experiential rather than material purchases makes people happier. This study challenges this idea by examining the hedonic/utilitarian nature of purchases. The results of a qualitative study and four experiments (one preregistered) show that the happiness advantage of experiential (vs. material) purchases is contingent on pronounced hedonic properties. Our results indicate that hedonism asymmetries override the distinction between purchase type, such that there is no happiness advantage in buying experiences over material objects when purchases are equally (non)hedonic. Importantly, we find that hedonism is more instrumental for material purchases and that hedonic materials are equally effective as experiential purchases, altogether, and even outperform utilitarian experiences in eliciting happiness. Our findings encourage consumers to focus on the properties, rather than the type, of purchases to increase purchase‐related happiness. Our results further suggest that marketers of material goods, in particular, can considerably increase customer value by using design components, product features, and brand imagery that leverage hedonic qualities.

Section: Conceptual Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hedonic objects and utilitarian experiences: The overriding influence of hedonism in driving consumer happiness

Kousi

Halkias

Kokkinaki

2023

“…The general consensus from this research stream is that consumers tend to derive greater satisfaction and happiness from experiential consumption than from material possessions (Caprariello & Reis, 2013;Carter & Gilovich, 2010, 2012Howell & Hill, 2009;Kumar et al, 2014;Nicolao et al, 2009;Razmus et al, 2022;Weingarten & Goodman, 2021). The greater positive impact that experiential purchases have on one's happiness has been termed the experiential advantage (Gilovich & Gallo, 2020;Weingarten & Goodman, 2021).…”

Section: Experiential Purchases and The Experiential Advantagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…An extensive body of work compares experiential and material purchases and their impact on consumer well‐being, including satisfaction (Carter & Gilovich, 2010), regret (Rosenzweig & Gilovich, 2012), intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) motivation (Ho & Wyer, 2021), and happiness (Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003; Weingarten & Goodman, 2021). The general consensus from this research stream is that consumers tend to derive greater satisfaction and happiness from experiential consumption than from material possessions (Caprariello & Reis, 2013; Carter & Gilovich, 2010, 2012; Howell & Hill, 2009; Kumar et al, 2014; Nicolao et al, 2009; Razmus et al, 2022; Weingarten & Goodman, 2021). The greater positive impact that experiential purchases have on one's happiness has been termed the experiential advantage (Gilovich & Gallo, 2020; Weingarten & Goodman, 2021).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

How power increases preference for experiential purchases but not for material purchases

Han

Smale

Lee

2023

While recent research indicates that experiential purchases lead to greater happiness than material purchases (i.e., experiential advantage), we have a limited understanding of when and why consumers prefer experiential purchases. In this paper, we address this topic and find that consumers' feelings of power play a significant role in their preference for experiential purchases. Across four experimental studies, using multiple manipulations and stimuli, we demonstrate that feelings of high (vs. low) power lead to increased consumer preference for experiential, but not material, purchases. Mediation (Study 3) and moderation (Study 4) analyses revealed that this phenomenon is driven by greater expected happiness from experiential purchases for consumers feeling high (vs. low) power. We contribute to the experiential purchase literature by identifying consumer power as an important antecedent of consumers' preference for experiences and also add to the consumer power literature by documenting how perceived power affects consumer evaluations and decision‐making. Furthermore, our paper suggests that managers should target people in powerful positions or seek to facilitate feelings of greater power in potential customers when marketing experiential products.

“…The concept of CBRs is centered on the notion that the bond between a consumer and a brand is analogous to that of interpersonal relationships (Fournier, 1998). Specifically, this study stream has focused on the building of a strong brand relationship as a long‐term strategy and outcome for the brand, and various studies have shown that this is built on the basis of positive brand behavior leading to positive consumer evaluations (MacInnis & Folkes, 2017; Park & John, 2018; Razmus et al, 2022). The long‐term relational focus has also shown to provide a better method of predicting buying behavior (Nyffenegger et al, 2015; Sarkar et al, 2021).…”

Section: Research Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less speed more haste: The effect of crisis response speed and information strategy on the consumer−brand relationship

Iveson

Hultman

Davvetas

et al. 2022

This paper investigates the relationship between firm crisis behavior and the resulting consumer–brand relationship (CBR) response. Drawing from theoretical traditions in brand transgressions, service failure, and crisis communications, we use longitudinal survey data combined with archival social media data to empirically test the effect of crisis response speed and crisis information strategy on the short‐term consumer crisis response evaluations (1 month after crisis response), and the long‐term CBR (1 year after crisis response). Results show that, contrary to intuitive expectations, a faster firm response is not always better, as a slower response was found to result in higher crisis response evaluations. We also show that this effect depends on the consistency of the communication strategy with the first active response. Specifically, when a firm prioritizes safety information (instructing strategy), a faster response is better. Whereas, when the firm prioritizes well‐being information (adjusting strategy), a slower response is better. We argue the counterintuitive finding that a slower response is better implies that reacting too quickly may signal rashness and unpreparedness to the customer, leading to more negative evaluations. We term this distinction the difference between being responsive (fast but considered) and reactive (faster but rash).