Alba 2013

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 1 (2013) 2 – 18
Research Review
Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic consumption
Joseph W. Alba a,⁎, Elanor F. Williams b
a
Department of Marketing, 212 Bryan Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611‐7155, USA
b
Rady School of Management, Otterson Hall, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093‐0553, USA
Received 20 March 2012; received in revised form 6 July 2012; accepted 24 July 2012
Available online 1 August 2012
Abstract
Thirty years ago, Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) advocated greater attention to hedonic consumption and the myriad ways in which
consumers seek pleasure and enjoyment. A thorough review finds that the topic has much appeal and that consumer research has made significant
progress toward understanding some of its parameters. However, many questions remain unanswered, particularly with regard to understanding the
sources of pleasure, the manner in which consumers seek it, and the ways in which consumers might alter their hedonic consumption decisions to
maximize pleasure and happiness. We assess three decades of research on hedonic consumption, emphasizing areas of greatest potential for future
exploration.
© 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hedonic consumption; Pleasure; Decision making; Happiness
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Defining hedonic consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sources and determinants of pleasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Pleasure in the product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Aesthetics and design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Having versus doing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Essences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pleasure from person–product interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pleasure from expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pleasure from engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Seeking (and finding?) pleasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Judging future pleasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Present as prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Satiation and adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Visceral states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Past as prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Recalled moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Abstraction and reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected]fl.edu (J.W. Alba), [email protected] (E.F. Williams).
1057-7408/$ -see front matter © 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.07.003
J.W. Alba, E.F. Williams / Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 1 (2013) 2–18 3
Making trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Myopia and hyperopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Pricing pleasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Introduction than its cleaning ability (Chaker, 2011); a prototypically hedonic

product such as chocolate could be consumed for its cardiovascular
A paradox of social science is that happiness and pleasure— benefits; and a product initially consumed to achieve euphoria may
states that reside at the heart of human welfare, legal and subsequently be consumed to reduce the unpleasant cravings
religious doctrine, and biological function—have only recently caused by addiction (Linden, 2011). Consumer activities suffer
begun to receive serious empirical study. A paradox of everyday the same problem, inasmuch as the same overt activity can be
life is that happiness and pleasure—states that should be easy to primarily hedonic or primarily utilitarian. Yard work may be
maximize due to the frequency and variability with which viewed as toil or a relaxing hobby, and toil itself may be viewed
consumers pursue them and the unambiguous feedback that as aversive or a source of satisfaction and pleasure (Crossen,
experience provides—are nonetheless pursued suboptimally by 2006).
even the most highly motivated and capable consumers. To its A goal-based perspective that focuses on whether the
credit, consumer research recognized the importance of enjoy- consumer is pursuing utilitarian or hedonic objectives (see
ment, pleasure, and happiness and consumption's role in Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Pham, 1998) is helpful in two ways. For
obtaining them at a relatively early stage in its own history, one, viewing hedonic consumption as being person-driven,
most notably by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982; see also with products serving merely as a means to a pleasurable end,
Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). In the ensuing time, it has also corresponds more closely to how people pursue hedonic
taken steps to understand the latter paradox. consumption outside the lab and reflects how idiosyncratic
The 30th anniversary of Hirschman and Holbrook's article any one consumer's pleasures may be. This perspective also
provides an occasion to reflect on the evolution and success of supports empirical investigation by guiding research away from
these efforts. We will argue that, whereas the size and trajectory confounds inherent in any product-to-product comparison.
of the relevant literature indicate broad recognition of the However, even this approach suffers from imprecision.
importance of the hedonic aspects of consumption, consumer Many acts of consumption are driven by some combination of
researchers have been inclined to frame the issue narrowly, in utilitarian and hedonic motives, and identifying the relative
part because many integral characteristics of hedonic consump- strength of each can be a daunting task. A single product (e.g.,
tion can be devilishly difficult to investigate via traditional a smartphone or computer) can simultaneously help its user
experimental paradigms. The result has been an impressively pursue dual utilitarian and hedonic goals. In addition, re-
supported set of assertions about relatively restricted aspects of searchers must carefully consider distinctions between means
hedonic consumption, an outcome that has yet to produce a full and ends. An aesthetically pleasing flowerbed may entail
understanding of when, how, and why consumers find pleasure strenuous labor, just as post-exercise contentment is achieved
in the products and events they experience—but also an outcome through painful exertion; conversely, a properly functioning
that suggests a great deal of unrealized potential. lawnmower (and the renewed obligation to use it) may result
from hours of happy tinkering. As we later elaborate, the
Defining hedonic consumption means–ends distinction is fundamental to the understanding of
pleasure, and misconstrual of the source of pleasure, i.e., the
Although there appears to be little controversy regarding the means versus the end, may partially account for people's
importance of hedonic consumption, the activity itself cannot be misguided pursuit of it.
neatly circumscribed. As Hirschman and Holbrook themselves Finally, a motivational perspective raises the question of what
originally characterized it, hedonic consumption consists of it means to achieve a hedonic objective. Consider two
“those facets of consumer behavior that relate to the multisen- moviegoers watching the same comedy in the same theater, one
sory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of one's experience with of whom laughs uproariously and the other of whom barely
products.” Many researchers instead have adopted less expansive smiles. It seems inappropriate to characterize the latter con-
operationalizations that facilitate experimental inquiry but sumer's theater visit as utilitarian, but neither does it conform to a
present a different set of challenges. Consider, for example, the conventional sense of a hedonic experience—despite the motive
seemingly straightforward product-based approach, which is to have one. It would be similarly curious to regard the use of
well represented in consumer research via the distinction antidepressants as a hedonic experience, even though they were
between utilitarian and hedonic products (e.g., Strahilevitz & taken with the intention of achieving greater happiness (or, at
Myers, 1998) or virtues and vices (e.g., Wertenbroch, 1998). A least, reduced sadness). To complicate matters further, happiness
prototypically utilitarian product may possess hedonic charac- itself can be experienced in multiple ways, including by way of
teristics, as when detergent is marketed based on its scent rather feelings as divergent as excitement and calm (Mogilner, Aaker, &
4 J.W. Alba, E.F. Williams / Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 1 (2013) 2–18
Kamvar, 2012; see also Kim, Park, & Schwarz, 2010). Two None of these conceptual or empirical difficulties should be
consumers may drink identical cups of coffee, one to provide a entirely surprising, inasmuch as Hirschman and Holbrook
boost in energy during a stressful workday and the other to themselves acknowledged that true hedonic consumption lacks
facilitate a relaxing afternoon among friends. clear defining features. However, whereas lay people may be
These examples should not be dismissed as merely content with a Stewartesque standard of knowing hedonic
hypothetical, inasmuch as the same motivational ambiguities consumption when they see it, most researchers seek clear
are apparent in the literature. Consider the seemingly utilitarian operationalizations, precise measures, and high levels of
activity of price shopping, which can be pleasurable for a experimental control, the result of which is a consumer
variety of non-monetary reasons, including those pertaining to literature that sacrifices richness for rigor. For example, many
the entertainment value of shopping (e.g., Ailawadi, Neslin, & programs of research examine consumer response to pieces of
Gedenk, 2001), the consumer's self-image regarding expertise candy or snippets of songs rather than the vacations, concerts,
or mavenism (e.g., Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993), and massages that reside further along the hedonic continuum
or even the simple pleasure of getting a good deal (e.g., Jin & and are more effective and important generators of consumer
Sternquist, 2004). Alternatively, consider some particularly risky enjoyment. Thus, insofar as hedonic consumption is character-
leisure pursuits, such as whitewater rafting and kayaking, ized by “multisensory images, fantasies and emotional arousal
skydiving, and gambling (Arnould & Price, 1993; Celsi, Rose, in using products” (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), consumer
& Leigh, 1993; Cotte, 1997; Hopkinson & Pujari, 1999). Aside research has largely failed to capture it.
from pleasure- and thrill-seeking, consumption of these activities Despite the numerous scholarly efforts to delineate the topic,
is motivated by a need for group membership or a sense of we suggest that a lay definition may provide the most broadly
community, self-expression, and personal growth and achieve- encompassing and intuitively appealing approach. A vital
ment. Even relatively mundane consumption behaviors can be component of hedonic consumption is whether the experience
multiply motivated by a desire for adventure, social interaction, of consuming the product or event is pleasurable. In fact, one
mood enhancement, and altruism (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; see might argue that, regardless of whether the consumption serves a
also Sherry, 1990). Moreover, some have characterized value- practical purpose or is pursued on its own merits, whether it
expressive motives as possessing both hedonic and utilitarian happens volitionally or by happenstance, and whether it is
aspects (Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000). These various compared to other forms of consumption or is examined on its
findings recall longstanding research on the symbolic nature of own, a universal and essential feature of hedonic consumption is
consumption, in which “hedonic goods” are purchased for the that it is (and is expected to be) pleasurable. The remainder of
non-hedonic objectives of status-seeking or identity-signaling our discussion uses pleasure as a guidepost and is organized
(Belk, 1988; Levy, 1959; for more recent developments, see around the two paradoxes noted at the outset; that is, we explore
Ariely & Levav, 2000; Berger & Heath, 2007; Berger & what accounts for pleasure, and how consumers attempt to
Ward, 2010; Ferraro, Shiv, & Bettman, 2005; Ratner & Kahn, pursue pleasure (and, in so doing, why consumers may fail to
2002). pursue pleasure optimally).
Numerous psychometric investigations have validated the
hedonic–utilitarian product distinction, although the results are Sources and determinants of pleasure
less than unequivocal. On the one hand, discriminant validity is
routinely reported (e.g., Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Batra & A focus on the experience of pleasure leads inevitably to
Ahtola, 1991; Bohm & Pfister, 1996; Childers, Carr, Peck, & questions of what provides and causes pleasure. The answer is
Carson, 2001; Crowley, Spangenberg, & Hughes, 1992; Mano less than straightforward, as witnessed by the broadly different
& Oliver, 1993; Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003). Face perspectives taken in the literature. Some experiences are
validity is also high—with hedonic products being perceived as inherently pleasurable and are more pleasurable than others, a
relatively more fun, enjoyable, and pleasant, and utilitarian view consistent with the comparative approaches that contrast
products being perceived as relatively more functional, neces- hedonic to utilitarian consumption. Sweet, fatty, or salty foods
sary, and effective—and there appears to be consensus that tend to be more enjoyable than bitter, bland, or sour ones;
consumption can be distinguished along instrumental/cognitive consonant music is more enjoyable than dissonant music;
versus emotional/affective lines (see also Millar & Tesser, experiences that are funny or exciting are more pleasing than
1986a). On the other hand, these same reports acknowledge not those that are serious or dull. We can speculate that pleasure is
only the anecdotal murkiness exemplified above but also evolutionarily developed, genetically coded, and chemically
messiness in the measurement outcomes themselves, with implemented (Linden, 2011; Wallenstein, 2009), but this
discriminant validity achieving uncomfortably low and incon- insight does little to advance the cause of traditional consumer
sistent levels across scales and researchers. Furthermore, these psychology. Fortunately, understanding the interaction between
formal studies are understandably more likely to construe pleasure and products is not intractable (see, e.g., Noble &
consumption at an abstract level rather than in an episodic and Kumar, 2010) and may be ripe for investigation at multiple
context-specific form. For example, relative to a concert or a levels.
bottle of wine, a cellphone may be viewed as utilitarian. Over the In the following section we discuss some sources and
course of a day, however, that same phone may swing between determinants of pleasure that are less intuitive and more inspiring
being a tool and being a toy. than those that are purely sensory. We sort these sources and
determinants of pleasure into two general categories: the product occasionally manipulated with the intent of examining their effect
or event (and its inherent qualities), and the consumer's personal on important consumer responses, but investigations into the
experience with or interpretation of the product or event. We specific aesthetic factors that prompt consumption have been either
believe that this dichotomy is a useful one for researchers and tightly focused on specific features such as proportion (Raghubir &
practitioners alike. However, the profound and profoundly Greenleaf, 2006) or harmony (Kumar & Garg, 2010), or have been
difficult task of defining pleasure does force us to impose our broad and exploratory (e.g., Joy & Sherry, 2003; Venkatesh &
own constraints. We do not intend to equate pleasure with either Meamber, 2008), with neither shedding light on aesthetically
satisfaction or happiness. The former is more closely tied to how driven pleasure, per se. Behavioral design and psycho-pleasures
well product experience meets expectations rather than the may similarly be viewed as beyond our boundaries (with some
inherent pleasure of that experience. The latter is the subject of a recent notable exceptions; see, e.g., Noseworthy & Trudel, 2011;
burgeoning literature often encountered in the realm of positive Thompson, Hamilton, & Rust, 2005), although there is precedent
psychology (e.g., Diener, 2000; Seligman, 2002). Happiness can for examining product mastery (see below). Perhaps the most
surely stem from consumption, as recent research on money, frequent connection between pleasurable product design frame-
income, and spending habits has shown (see Dunn, Gilbert, & works and hedonic consumption is to reflective design (Norman),
Wilson, 2011, and attendant commentaries), but much of the and socio- and ideo-pleasure (Jordan), which will be echoed in our
research on this equally profound topic has been more discussion of nostalgia, product essences, and flow and flourishing,
concerned with general life satisfaction and happiness than topics that involve the interaction of design, meaning, and pleasure.
with particular product choices or consumption episodes, to Consumer research has recently provided compelling evidence
which we next turn. for the importance of aesthetics in consumer decision making by
demonstrating that consumers attend to aesthetics both beyond the
Pleasure in the product margin of their decision processes and within product categories
that are not purely aesthetic (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008a; Reimann,
In addition to physiologically driven pleasures, there are many Zaichkowsky, Neuhaus, Bender, & Weber, 2010; Townsend &
features of products that consumers find to be psychologically Shu, 2010). For instance, aesthetics may not always be enjoyed in
pleasurable, including—but not limited to—the thought, care, or and of itself, but instead appreciated in context through its
style put into a product and even what a product's basic essence is influence on other product-related dimensions, as when the
perceived to be with regard to its purity and authenticity. placement of artwork on a product or package changes the
perceived luxury of the brand. Perceptions of luxury and the
Aesthetics and design pleasure that results from those perceptions, whether induced via
One approach to pleasure takes a design-based perspective. artwork or otherwise, in turn may prompt consumers to be more
The most prominent popular proponent of pleasurable design is cognitively accommodating, more prone to affect-based than
Norman (2004), who argues for three different levels of cognition-based processing, and therefore more accepting of brand
processing or understanding of products and product features. extensions into distant categories (Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2008b,
Whereas the visceral level is a hard-wired response primarily to 2009; see also Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991).
physical product features that conforms most closely to the In addition, hedonic reactions to aesthetic features can
common understanding of aesthetic response (i.e., the product's overwhelm utilitarian calculations even among products not
design and form), the behavioral level encompasses function, typically considered to be hedonic products. When consumers
performance, and usability, and the reflective level—most novel face a choice between a hedonically superior option (i.e., one
from a design perspective—includes meaning and interpretation. with superior aesthetic and design features) that fails to meet
All three levels of processing can be pleasurable in their own functional criteria and a functionally superior option that is less
ways, as when the enjoyment a user gets from an iPad arises not appealing hedonically, the latter is unsurprisingly favored;
only from its attractiveness but also how easy it is to use and how however, when both options exceed basic functional and hedonic
futuristic it seems to be. Similarly, Jordan (2000) proposes four requirements, the hedonically superior option is favored (Chitturi,
types of product pleasures: (a) physio-pleasures, emanating from Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2007). Similarly, when consumers are
the senses, (b) socio-pleasures, emanating from interpersonal and confident about a product's functional utility, they may prefer
group relationships, (c) psycho-pleasures, emanating from one's aesthetically more interesting designs (Noseworthy & Trudel,
emotional and cognitive reactions to product use, and (d) ideo- 2011). Consistent outcomes are observed in consumer's affective
pleasures, emanating more broadly from product meanings and response to consumption. When the product meets or exceeds
personal values. utilitarian criteria, consumers experience satisfaction; when a
Consumer research has focused primarily on the consequences product meets or exceeds hedonic criteria, consumers experience
of hedonic consumption, rather than its antecedents and de- excitement and delight, become more loyal, and are more
terminants, leaving room to examine what Norman's and Jordan's inclined to engage in positive word of mouth (Chitturi,
structures reveal about hedonic consumption decisions and Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2008). These results add useful
experiences. For example, consumer research has historically complexity to design tools such as the Kano model (see Cohen,
paid only scant attention to deeper product features that drive 1995) by suggesting, for instance, that firms can increase
visceral aesthetic responses or sensory pleasure (see Hoegg & customer excitement or delight by promoting aesthetic and
Alba, 2008 and Krishna, 2012, for discussions). Aesthetics are other hedonic qualities of their products.
Having versus doing it has been taken to a more extreme and speculative point by
An intriguing but curiously under-pursued determinant of Bloom (2010), who argues that things are believed to “have an
long-term enjoyment is the nature of consumption itself. A underlying reality or true nature that one cannot observe
recent survey of retirees' general happiness revealed that the directly and it is this hidden nature that really matters” (p. 9).
only type of consumption activity to play a role was leisure Moreover, the “pleasure we get from many things and activities
consumption (DeLeire & Kalil, 2010). At a more abstract level, is based in part on what we see as their essences. … it underlies
the issue can be framed in terms of whether people derive more our passions, our appetites, and our desires.” (p. 22). Thus, food
happiness from consuming possessions or experiences. Van and wine taste better when identified with a prestigious name
Boven and Gilovich (2003) contend that experience bestows that implies a higher level of essential quality; we derive greater
the greater amount of happiness, despite the fact that pleasure from an original work of art by a master than from an
possessions remain in people's lives whereas experiences are indistinguishable reproduction; we enjoy a piece of music more
temporary. One of several arguments in favor of this assertion when we know the performer is a famous virtuoso than not; we
involves the notion that a material possession is static, and are hesitant to eat food that has been genetically modified; and
pleasure derived from it is subject to relatively rapid adaptation. In we prize artifacts that have been touched by famous people
contrast, experiences are intangible, existing only in the (e.g., Bloom, 2010; Newman, Diesendruck, & Bloom, 2011).
consumer's mind once completed and subject to an apparently Intuition suggests that “essence” or authenticity may also be
slower rate of adaptation (e.g., Nicolao, Irwin, & Goodman, 2009). implicated in the affection with which people embrace products
Further, positive past experiences may become even more positive and brands experienced early in life (Fusilli, 2012; Lindstrom,
through elaboration-driven polarization (e.g., Van Boven, 2005; 2011).
Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003). Irritants may also be minimized or Bloom views the phenomenon of essentialism to be universal,
forgotten, leading to fond recollections and a willingness to suggesting that the pleasure one derives from any particular
repurchase or re-experience (Klaaren, Hodges, & Wilson, 1994). stimulus will depend on how one interprets its essence, and that
Likewise, recent work on the regrets prompted by material and altered essences can lead to altered experience. As Rozin (1999)
experiential purchases suggests that material purchases are notes, “Almost everything an adult likes or dislikes is at least
related to regrets of action, which are more likely to be partly an acquired taste ([or] distaste)” (p. 119). As we discuss
experienced in the short-term, whereas experiential purchases next, what consumers believe or are told about a product can
prompt regrets of inaction, which are more likely to be have a deep influence on the enjoyment and pleasure they
experienced in the long-term (e.g., Rosenzweig & Gilovich, experience upon consumption.
2012). Experiences are also more likely to be social and to be
discussed with others, both of which can increase enjoyment of Pleasure from person–product interactions
positive experiences (e.g., Raghunathan & Corfman, 2006),
whereas people who make and discuss material purchases may be The notion that tastes can be acquired highlights the fact that
stigmatized by others (e.g., Van Boven, Campbell, & Gilovich, consumers can serve as “moderators” of pleasure through their
2010). In addition, experiential purchases are less subject to idiosyncratic reactions to product experiences. We highlight
comparisons that could diminish enjoyment of them than are two particular domains in which the pleasure a consumer
material purchases. It is easier, for instance, to compare the experiences results from an interaction between the consumer's
features of one car with the features of another than it is to psychological profile and the inherent nature of the event: the
compare the beauty of one beach with the beauty of another consumer's expectations of the product and the consumer's
(Carter & Gilovich, 2010). engagement with the product. We acknowledge that many
A different but related approach asks whether people are personality traits also can influence a consumer's experience
made happier by a change in their circumstances (e.g., a pay with a product, such as their tendency toward indulgence or
raise or a move) versus a change in their “activities” (e.g., an responsibility (e.g., Haws & Poynor, 2008) and the importance
exercise plan or a new hobby). Paralleling the distinction they place on aesthetics (e.g., Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003),
between material and experiential purchases, evidence suggests but we focus on moderators that speak primarily to the nature of
an analogously lesser impact from changes in circumstances consumer pleasure rather than the nature of the consumer.
than changes in activities (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade,
2005; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). Happiness with life Pleasure from expectations
changes also declines more precipitously for circumstances Expectations naturally guide consumers' choices (see below),
than for activities (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). As in but they also less obviously determine the extent to which
comparisons of having versus doing, the rationale is that consumers eventually enjoy their outcomes. Further, as we will
circumstances are relatively more static and therefore more discuss, expectations may influence pleasure both during the
subject to adaptation, whereas activities are more modifiable consumption episode as well as before and after it occurs.
and offer greater diversity of experience.
Beliefs about consumption. Consumers are known to express a
Essences degree of pleasure with an object or experience that corresponds
The idea that the pleasure consumers feel due to a hedonic to their expectations for pleasure with that object or experience.
event is determined in part by the meaning they associate with Wilson and Klaaren's (1992) Affective Expectation Model posits
that people's affective reactions to stimuli are formed in reference harm to their recollection. Nostalgia can influence product
to their expectations of those stimuli, such that their expectations evaluation as well. When prompted by an ad to recall a previous
often determine their emotional reactions. As subsequent personally relevant hedonic event (e.g., an intimate dining
research has borne out, the more consumers expect to like objects experience), consumers' judgments of the brand featured in the
and experiences, including entertainment (Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, & ad become more positive, have a more affective and less
Wetzel, 1989), food and drink (Lee, Frederick, & Ariely, 2006), cognitive foundation, and are insensitive to the quality of
and clothing (Hoch & Ha, 1986), the more they do like them once evidence supporting the brand's virtue (Sujan, Bettman, &
they experience them. A key issue has been whether that pleasure Baumgartner, 1993). Nostalgia also appears to increase con-
also corresponds to underlying changes in sensation and sumers' inclinations to donate to charity, as it engenders greater
perception, or whether consumers are merely claiming pleasure feelings of empathy toward those in need (Zhou, Wildschut,
rather than experiencing it. Research suggests that marketing Sedikides, Shi, & Feng, 2012). Consumers even show a desire to
interventions can influence the attention consumers devote to collect novel and unusual experiences, at the expense of more
different dimensions of the product, which in turn will influence familiar and expectedly enjoyable experiences (Keinan & Kivetz,
their evaluations (Elder & Krishna, 2010; Hoch & Ha, 1986) and, 2011), in part so that they can enjoy recalling or recounting them
moreover, that this influence may extend to perceptual discrim- later.
ination (Hoegg & Alba, 2007) and sensory enjoyment (Lee et al., Consumers can savor experiences in prospect as well as in
2006). Indeed, recent evidence demonstrates that product retrospect, a recognized yet underexplored aspect of hedonic
information such as brand name (e.g., McClure et al., 2004) or consumption (e.g., Elster & Loewenstein, 1992). Folk wisdom
price (e.g., Plassmann, O'Doherty, Shiv, & Rangel, 2008) affects claims that “anticipation is better than realization.” There is
pleasure at a neural level, indicating that expectation-driven evidence that this folk wisdom stands up to scrutiny, although
pleasure is experienced rather than merely claimed. not universally. The first empirical demonstration of savoring
From the perspective of everyday hedonic consumption, the future revealed that, unlike for monetary outcomes, people
however, this distinction may be less important. If consumers prefer to wait some period of time to experience desired events
believe they enjoy an experience more when marketing cues raise (e.g., a kiss from one's favorite celebrity, a fancy meal) rather
expectations than when they do not, the experience is enjoyable than consume them immediately, although the value of waiting
irrespective of whether sensory perceptions were truly altered. If eventually decreases (Loewenstein, 1987). Subsequent research
consumers experience greater joy from a cartoon because they are demonstrated similar effects in the domain of gambling, such
told they will (Wilson et al., 1989), enjoy a beverage because they that the more valuable the outcome of a gamble, the longer
know its brand name (Nevid, 1981), or savor an expensive wine people were inclined to delay learning about the outcome
despite an inability to discriminate it from a less expensive wine (Lovallo & Kahneman, 2000). Beyond the perceived value of a
(Mlodinow, 2009), they are nonetheless experiencing greater delay, the sheer emotional experience of anticipating an event is
pleasure, regardless of its cause. (Of course, consumer re- also more intense than relevant post-event emotional experi-
searchers may still wish to probe the accuracy of consumers' ences (Van Boven & Ashworth, 2007).
hedonic reactions and the costs they incur to achieve their desired One can also find traces of savoring in consumers' preference
hedonic states [e.g., Raghunathan, Naylor, & Hoyer, 2006].) 1 for sequences of outcomes of unequal attractiveness. People
prefer sequences that increase in attractiveness (e.g., Loewenstein
Savoring. Consumers are known to savor their memories of & Prelec, 1991, 1993) and, under some circumstances, even
enjoyable and meaningful experiences. They show a desire to prefer to place payment before benefits so that the pain of
preserve special memories (Zauberman, Ratner, & Kim, 2008), a payment is decoupled from the anticipated enjoyment of the
goal that presupposes that memories provide utility and that is experience (Prelec & Loewenstein, 1998). In essence, people
consistent with the finding that nostalgia is socially and prefer a happy ending (e.g., Ross & Simonson, 1991). When
attitudinally reinforcing (e.g., Loveland, Smeesters, & Mandel, hedonic events are controllable, consumers prefer to space good
2008; Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, & Routledge, 2006). This outcomes over time, thereby lengthening the period of anticipa-
desire is apparently so strong that consumers not only try to tion (e.g., Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993). At a general level,
procure memorabilia or souvenirs of meaningful experiences but consumers are more sensitive to the pattern of change leading to
also refrain from re-experiencing special events so as not to do the final outcome for consummatory activities and experiences,
whereas their satisfaction with instrumental activities is driven
1
Marketing scholars and practitioners have been keenly interested in the role of more by the absolute value of the final outcome (Hsee, Abelson,
expectations from the perspective of customer satisfaction (e.g., Phillips &
& Salovey, 1991).
Baumgartner, 2002), because it is widely thought that unmet expectations lead to
dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). However, satisfaction should not be equated with
Waiting is a common and related consumer experience.
pleasure, and contrast effects in experience might be rarer than assumed (e.g., Geers Although imposed delays can enhance enjoyment, the effect of
& Lassiter, 1999), in part because consumers often assimilate to their expectations, such delays is opaque to consumers, as evidenced by their
and in part because experience is often enjoyed on its own merits rather than in expressed preference for more immediate consumption (Nowlis,
comparison to expectations or to other experiences (e.g., Morewedge, Gilbert, Mandel, & McCabe, 2004). When consumers are motivated and
Myrseth, Kassam, & Wilson, 2010; Novemsky & Ratner, 2003). Expectations do
seem to predict both consumers' recalled experience and their intention to re- free to choose, they experience the highest levels of anticipated
experience the same event or object (Klaaren et al., 1994). Still, it seems likely that enjoyment with medium-length waits, which are long enough for
one could both enjoy an experience and be disappointed by it. them to build up some anticipation, but not so long that irritation
can set in (Chan & Mukhopadhyay, 2010). However, post- consumer's situational capacity to be discerning (Shiv & Nowlis,
consumption enjoyment is lowest at medium wait times, 2004).
presumably because expectations are highest when wait times Research on procedural knowledge is relatively sparse but
are in the middle and disappointment is more likely. consistent with intuition. Consumers derive greater enjoyment
Finally, consumers may anticipate not only the onset of a from an activity as their proficiency with it increases (Holbrook,
hedonic experience but also its absence. While engaged in a Chestnut, Oliva, & Greenleaf, 1984), and discontinuous im-
hedonic experience, awareness of its alternative may prompt provements associated with feelings of insight provide particu-
consumers to relish it all the more, especially if they do not focus larly high increases in affinity for a product (Lakshmanan &
on its termination point (Zhao & Tsai, 2011). Generally, feeling Krishnan, 2011). Proficiency reduces frustration, which should
uncertain about how long a positive event will last makes the enhance utilitarian and hedonic experiences alike. However,
experience that much more intense (e.g., Bar-Anan, Wilson, & Murray and Bellman (2011) speculate that the efficiency gains
Gilbert, 2009). Indeterminate causes and outcomes of pleasurable produced by mastery operate differently in the utilitarian and
events can likewise increase or prolong consumers' enjoyment of hedonic spheres. Whereas proficiency simply reduces the time it
them in the moment (e.g., Vosgerau, Wertenbroch, & Carmon, takes to complete a utilitarian task, it works to increase the
2006; Wilson, Centerbar, Kermer, & Gilbert, 2005). amount of enjoyment that can be obtained in any given time
interval from hedonic activities. Consumers who fail to ap-
Pleasure from engagement preciate these dynamics may prematurely abandon potentially
Lastly, the degree to which consumers enjoy a product or fruitful hedonic pursuits.
experience can depend on the degree to which they are involved Although the preceding research deals with the consumer's
in the consumption experience. Specialized knowledge can mastery of a domain, pleasure is also derived from appreciation of
reveal aspects of a product or event to be enjoyed that are others' mastery. Indeed, Kubovy (1999) suggests that perceived
unknown to novices. However, even novices can benefit from virtuosity and the sense of perfection can inspire pleasure. The
engagement such that their pleasure with consumption is transcendent appreciation of another person's extraordinary talent,
amplified both in the moment and in retrospect. or the extreme beauty of certain art, music, and architecture, has
been theorized to produce awe, a rare but meaningful emotion that
Expertise. Just as the number of product-related experiences a can produce not only enjoyment but a new understanding of the
consumer undergoes is not necessarily related to the ability to world at large, and of oneself (Keltner & Haidt, 2003).
perform product-related tasks (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987), the
hedonic response that mere aficionados experience in a domain Flow and flourishing. The introduction of meaning into
may not match the hedonic response true experts receive from aesthetic design, as discussed by Jordan (2000) and Norman
their mastery of that domain (LaTour & LaTour, 2010). Mastery (2004), is a welcome insight into pleasure. However, meaning
itself can evolve in the realms of both declarative and procedural can exist at multiple levels, and its aesthetic operationalization
knowledge (Anderson, 1976). Consumer research has focused might be considered to be at a relatively shallow level. Meaning
more on the former, although neither has received sufficient considered in a deeper way leads to a more fundamental
attention. Declarative knowledge is represented by research on consideration of the term “pleasure” itself. Over the past three
“consumption vocabularies” (West, Brown, & Hoch, 1996). This decades, social scientists have delved into the relationship (and,
work demonstrates that development of a vocabulary regarding at times, lack of relationship) between pleasure and happiness
product experience allows for greater ability to discriminate and, moreover, between happiness and well-being (e.g., Ryan
across alternatives, more stable preferences, and more resilient & Deci, 2001). The result has not been an outright denial of the
attitudes (Lageat, Czellar, & Laurent, 2003; LaTour & LaTour, importance of transient pleasure but rather a recognition that
2010; West et al., 1996). In light of Redden's (2008) finding that consumers' goals may rise above mere self-indulgence or
more finely differentiated experiences are associated with momentary fun. Thus, whereas research on hedonic consump-
reduced satiation, a reasonable conjecture within the context of tion has struggled with the distinction between hedonic and
hedonic consumption is that declarative knowledge can result in a utilitarian pursuits, hedonic consumption itself can result in
more stimulating and longer lasting experience. A key question pleasure as well as a deeper kind of enjoyment, rising even to
concerns the effects of such knowledge on affective response. the level of fulfillment—outcomes that can be captured in the
Anecdotal evidence suggests, for example, that wine experts processes of “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008) and flourishing
relish the task of tasting, comparing, and evaluating different (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Seligman, 2011). The
wines and receive much greater utility from the task than do former, not unfamiliar to consumer psychologists, is charac-
non-experts. Research suggests that consideration of a greater terized by deep immersion in an activity to the exclusion of
number of sensory dimensions can enhance product evaluation other thought. The latter is a newer, more encompassing, and
(Elder & Krishna, 2010). However, common knowledge also more multidimensional construct characterized not only by
suggests that experts are more discerning and demanding and positive emotion and engagement but also the meaning,
therefore less tolerant of substandard experiences. The extremity accomplishment, and social relationships engendered by an
of one's hedonic evaluations are therefore likely to be a function activity.
not only of the complexity of the product but also the complexity Both flow and flourishing offer multiple demonstrations of
of the consumer (Linville, 1982; Millar & Tesser, 1986b) and the the fundamental differences between superficial pleasure and
deeper enjoyment. Many things are momentarily pleasurable but Judging future pleasure
hardly meaningful, ennobling, or consistent with well-being
(e.g., cigarettes, alcohol, and narcotics). A subtler but nonetheless We begin with a note about maximizing happiness: any
intuitive demonstration of the distinction involves the moment at discussion of decision making requires consideration of how well
which the feeling is experienced. Csikszentmihalyi and Seligman those decisions are made, and thus how effectively those
agree that pleasure and happiness occur in the moment, whereas decisions meet consumers' wants or needs. Consumers make
the fulfilling kind of enjoyment they propose is retrospective, but decisions about pursuing hedonic consumption based on what
in a reflective rather than nostalgic sense. Focused involvement they expect will be pleasurable (most pleasurable, especially), for
banishes not only unrelated thoughts but also potentially a desirable amount of time (the longest, in particular). They will
distracting feelings about the activity itself, such that the do so “accurately” to the extent that their expectations and beliefs
individual recognizes and labels the activity as enjoyable only are calibrated. Research on affective forecasting is perhaps the
at some point after its completion. Finally, it is even possible to best known examination of how predictions of future enjoyment
flourish without an abundance of positive emotion when and happiness are made and how accurate those predictions are.
accomplishment is the dominating characteristic of flourishing. This work typically finds that people overestimate the duration
Activities that fall under the heading of labor can be emotionally (e.g., Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 2002) and
satisfying—and more motivating than material gain—if imbued intensity (e.g., Buehler & McFarland, 2001) of their affective
with meaning and a sense of progress (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). reactions to both negative events (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson,
Consequently, consumers who engage in deliberate and direct Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998) and positive events (Wilson,
pursuits of happiness may wind up pursuing the wrong activities Wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert, & Axsom, 2000; see also Kahneman,
and experiences and missing those that might give them greater Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2006), suggesting that
life satisfaction (Gruber, Mauss, & Tamir, 2011). miscalibration is quite common. Such misforecasts have been
When viewed through the lenses of immersion, meaning, and attributed to a variety of causes, including a disproportionate focus
accomplishment, it becomes apparent that hedonic consumption on the central event at the expense of extenuating circumstances
should not be defined solely by the magnitude of the hedonic event (e.g., Wilson et al., 2000), insensitivity to the psychological
(e.g., truffle vs. opera consumption) but should also incorporate tendency to lessen the impact of negative events on our psy-
the way the consumer approaches the event. Hedonic products like chological health (e.g., Gilbert et al., 1998) and make sense of more
food, art, music, and sports can be consumed at a sensory level, a positive events (Wilson et al., 2005), and over-reliance on lay
deeper structural level, or anywhere in between—and the level at theories (e.g., Igou, 2004), normative rules (Wood & Bettman,
which such activities engage a consumer can determine whether 2007), or current physical states (e.g., Loewenstein, 1996).
the outcome is pleasure, enjoyment, or well-being. Indeed, any The obvious importance of both the ability to forecast future
activity, whether work or play, can induce flow depending on the pleasure correctly and understanding of when and why consumers
consumer's level of involvement and analysis. fall short has inspired a great deal of research and, subsequently,
several insightful and integrative treatments (e.g., Hsee & Hastie,
2006; Hsee & Tsai, 2008; Loewenstein & Schkade, 1999;
Seeking (and finding?) pleasure MacInnis, Patrick, & Park, 2006; Wilson & Gilbert, 2003, 2005).
Of note here is that, although the misforecasting of pleasure is
Many pleasures are obtained and experienced passively: common (e.g., Wirtz, Kruger, Scollon, & Diener, 2003), fore-
consumers receive chocolates and other gifts, see an amusing casting error may at times be attenuated in the case of positive
commercial while watching the news, and stumble upon beautiful events (e.g., Finkenauer, Gallucci, van Dijk, & Pollmann, 2007).
sunsets and sweeping vistas. However, as emphasized by When pleasure is the focus, the literature has also emphasized
Hirschman and Holbrook, consumers also seek out pleasurable differences between the predicted and actual duration of the impact
products and experiences, and researchers have actively sought to of events on one's happiness, with the result that people typically
understand how and when consumers decide to seek that pleasure. overestimate the persistence of a blessing's effect in prospect
The remaining discussion examines research on how consumers (e.g., Wilson et al., 2000) and consequently “miswant” that
decide to pursue hedonic consumption. Consumer research on this blessing to occur (Gilbert & Wilson, 2005). Duration itself, as it
question has tended to focus on relatively small-bore questions pertains to the scope of consumer behavior, merits more attention
relating primarily to consumers' willingness to “indulge.” In so from consumer researchers. The forecasting literature has exam-
doing, it has also commonly adopted paradigms that make direct ined both the “smaller scale” happiness in specific response to the
hedonic-to-utilitarian comparisons, described variously in the event as well as a hedonic event's impact on overall happiness in
literature in terms of virtues versus vices (e.g., Wertenbroch, life. The former appears more relevant to a traditional view of
1998), shoulds versus wants (e.g., Bazerman, Tenbrunsel, & hedonic consumption, with the central question concerning the
Wade-Benzoni, 1998), and necessities versus luxuries (e.g., Kivetz accuracy with which consumers forecast happiness with their
& Simonson, 2002a, 2002b; see Khan, Dhar, & Wertenbroch, purchase (Wang, Novemsky, & Dhar, 2009). Still, per our
2005, for an elaborated discussion of these and related distinc- discussion of experiential versus material purchases (e.g., Van
tions). We draw on this work, as well as work from outside strict Boven & Gilovich, 2003), people also consume in order to
consumer domains, to illuminate consumer decision making transform their lives and bring lasting happiness. Understanding
regarding hedonic consumption. the types of purchases that consumers expect will achieve these
objectives, as well as the accuracy of those expectations, is vital to across brands. Consumers frequently over-predict satiation to
improving consumers' lives. positive experiences, which results in over-pursuing variety and
Research on affective forecasting has largely been more a reduction of the total utility they might obtain from those
interested in the determinants of the predictions people make purchases. A primary reason for such misforecasts involves
and how well those predictions match reality than it is in the people's pervasive lay theories—or “meta-hedonic” beliefs—
consequences of those (mismatched) predictions. In contrast, regarding pleasure and pain (Igou, 2004; Snell, Gibbs, &
the manner in which people make choices regarding hedonic Varey, 1995). Consumers correctly anticipate satiation from
consumption has been a particular focus of consumer research, continual or continuous usage but may misjudge the point at
with the emphasis on how consumers choose a pleasurable which satiation will occur (e.g., Ratner, Kahn, & Kahneman,
experience over a more utilitarian one, a different pleasurable 1999; Wang et al., 2009), particularly when consumption is
experience, or no alternative experience. It is these choices to distributed over an extended time frame (Galak, Kruger, &
which we now turn. Loewenstein, 2011). 2
When the intervals widen and the degree of similarity
Present as prologue between the events is relaxed only slightly, consumers may
instead fail to anticipate satiation or seek variety when they
Consumers' judgments of future enjoyment are often based should. Consider, for example, projection bias, wherein
on present feelings. Features of the present, however, can skew consumers “behave as if their future preferences will be more
predictions and thus decisions, for good or for ill. like their current preferences than they actually will be”
(Loewenstein & Angner, 2003). Such “presentism” will lead
Satiation and adaptation consumers to underestimate satiation (Gilbert, Gill, & Wilson,
As implied by our discussion of affective forecasting, 2002). A form of presentism may also be manifested in the
consumers readily habituate to consumption experiences, and emotions experienced in anticipation of a hedonic event.
thus readily satiate or adapt to them. Satiation and variety- Evidence suggests that anticipated emotions maybe more
seeking are well-studied phenomena within marketing, due to intense than retrieved emotions of the same or a similar event,
their obvious managerial relevance to brand switching and even when the event has been experienced repeatedly in the
brand loyalty. Perhaps because it lacks an inflection point that past (Van Boven & Ashworth, 2007). Over a still longer term,
can prompt switching, research on adaptation is not as projection bias may be reflected in consumers' failure to
extensive and is particularly sparse with regard to expectations recognize that their tastes have changed through experience or
of adaptation. One recent effort indicates that consumers expect maturation. If, at a later time, consumers do recognize that their
enjoyment to decline with repeated experience, but they tastes have changed, they may abandon long-term plans, or risk
apparently do not spontaneously incorporate these beliefs into disappointment by ill-advisedly engaging in nostalgia-driven
their predictions of enjoyment, (Wang et al., 2009; see also attempts to relive a past experience that no longer corresponds
Ubel, Loewenstein, & Jepson, 2005). If incorporated, the to their present tastes.
impact of such expectations on prediction and behavior should Because pleasure is diminished by repeated experience,
depend on whether consumers over- or underestimate the rate consumers are practiced in seeking novelty and variety, and the
of adaptation (see Patrick, MacInnis, & Park, 2007; Pollai, variety-seeking literature is correspondingly robust and long-
Hoelzl, & Possas, 2010)—a question that may not yield a standing (e.g., Kahn, 1995; McAlister & Pessemier, 1982).
simple answer, as it is likely determined by idiosyncratic However, introducing variety into consumption is not the only
aspects of the specific purchase and time frame (e.g., Frederick way in which consumers can reduce satiation. Satiation appears
& Loewenstein, 1999). to have a substantial psychological component (e.g., Morewedge,
The question of how well the experience and the expectation Huh, & Vosgerau, 2010), and thus pleasure can be increased
of satiation match up has been more thoroughly examined. One simply through conscious consideration of past consumption
stream of research largely pertains to repeat purchase and has variety—although it appears that consumers rarely engage in
evolved into an investigation of real-versus-expected satiation. such retrospection spontaneously (Galak, Redden, & Kruger,
A fundamental finding is that consumers do not accurately 2009). Further, consumers prefer assortments in which variety is
forecast their own feelings of satiation, misestimating the
degree to which their enjoyment of an object will decrease the
2
more they consume it (Kahneman & Snell, 1992; Read & Lay theories appear to underlie a wide variety of hedonic misforecasts
beyond mere adaptation and satiety. For example, lay theories may lead
Loewenstein, 1995; Simonson, 1990). Inman (2001) asserted
consumers to overestimate the likely effect of contrast effects on experienced
that satiation and variety-seeking occur at the sensory level pleasure (Novemsky & Ratner, 2003; see also Morewedge, Huh, & Vosgerau,
(rather than at other attribute levels, such as brand) and 2010), overestimate the likely effect of psychological distance on their
therefore may be particularly pertinent to hedonic products, emotional reactions (Ebert & Meyvis, in preparation), mispredict the affective
inasmuch as it is typically the sensory features of a product like consequences of interrupted hedonic consumption (Nelson & Meyvis, 2008),
flavor or scent that directly determine enjoyment rather than assess their experienced enjoyment of an episode based on its perceived
duration (Sackett, Meyvis, Nelson, Converse, & Sackett, 2010), allow
broader ones like product category or brand. This assertion is perceived healthiness of food to influence judgments of tastiness (Raghunathan
supported empirically by Inman's discovery that consumers are et al., 2006), and incorrectly predict enjoyment of an indulgence based on
more likely to seek variety across varieties of a brand than whether its consumption can be justified (Xu & Schwarz, 2009).
easier to perceive (Kahn & Wansink, 2004). Consumers can also Recalled moments
increase their pleasure with consumption by categorizing it at These observations raise the question of what information
deeper levels of refinement such that variation within the does serve as the basis for retrospective assessment of a hedonic
category is made salient and consumers' focus is turned toward event. A classic finding is that the temporal duration of the
the characteristics that differentiate the category members positive and negative elements of the experience is not predictive
(Redden, 2008), or by simply slowing down their rate of of one's retrospective evaluation of that event (e.g., Fredrickson
consumption (e.g., Galak et al., 2011; Galak, Kruger, & & Kahneman, 1993). Fredrickson and Kahneman hypothesized
Loewenstein, forthcoming). that memory-based evaluation is instead based on the peak and
final moments of the experience (e.g., Fredrickson, 2000;
Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993), although evidence for this
Visceral states idea is sometimes mixed in real-life contexts such as vacations or
Desire for and decisions about a wide variety of products meals (e.g., Kemp, Burt, & Furneaux, 2008; Rode, Rozin, &
and experiences are driven by physiological drive states, Durlach, 2007). The consumer context requires further tests of
including hunger, thirst, sexual arousal, curiosity, and cravings. generalizability. For example, within the cinematic context of the
The pressure imposed by this variety of states is difficult to original peak-end research, brief film clips capture some
appreciate when in a state of satiation because their inherent emotions but are not capable of addressing tedium or boredom
physiological components are difficult or impossible to that may grow with duration. In addition, some hedonic ex-
recreate—even though these drives may have been experienced periences have multiple but opposing peak components, some of
numerous times in the past. As such, very costly errors can arise which may comprise the end of the experience (e.g., the thrill of
due to consumers' well-documented inability to predict the skiing and the aversiveness of traveling home). Hence, the question
motivational impetus of a future drive state when currently not of whether and how multi-part or extended experiences are
in that state, (e.g., Loewenstein, 1996; Van Boven & compartmentalized looms large (Ariely & Zauberman, 2000,
Loewenstein, 2003). For example, consumers are willing to 2003).
undertake riskier behaviors to obtain products they are craving
when under the influence of a visceral drive than when in a Abstraction and reconstruction
neutral state (Ditto, Pizarro, Epstein, Jacobsen, & MacDonald, An important determinant of prediction and expectation is
2006), they show less interest in products that can improve their recalled experience. We noted in the context of satiation that
health and safety but might interfere with pleasure when they people err by anchoring on the present when forecasting future
are aroused (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2006), and they make more preferences. However, people also anchor on the present when
pessimistic (and perhaps realistic) forecasts of their ability to recalling prior emotions and visceral states (e.g., Nordgren, van
exert self-control when confronted with temptation than when der Pligt, & van Harreveld, 2006; Robinson & Clore, 2002).
that temptation is not present (Nordgren, van der Pligt, & van Emotions vary in intensity over time and, moreover, the most
Harreveld, 2008). salient emotion may be the emotion one feels at present (Van
Boven et al., 2009). For example, consumers may form an on-line
assessment but later reconstruct it in a context that includes
Past as prologue subsequent information, behaviors, and feelings (Braun, 1999;
Cowley, 2007; Levine & Safer, 2002). As a result, recollections
People not only take pleasure from nostalgia and fond of previous emotional states are biased in the direction of later
memories but also use their recollections to inform decisions. events or are unintentionally distorted through an inference
The wisdom of such behavior is a function of the reliability of process to be consistent with the subsequent state of affairs.
those recollections. As Kahneman (2011) cautions, one's In fact, emotional assessment of the event is more extreme
experience and one's memory for that experience can diverge both before and after the event than at the time of its occurrence
in systematic ways, and it is the latter that forms the basis for (Mitchell, Thompson, Peterson, & Cronk, 1997; Wilson, Meyers,
subsequent decisions. The reasonableness of viewing the past as & Gilbert, 2003; Wirtz et al., 2003), yet decisions to repeat the
prologue also depends on the similarity between the past and experience appear driven to a greater degree by recollected
future experiences, and learning from past experience requires a experience than by predicted or experienced emotion (Wirtz et
decision about which past experiences are most relevant to one's al., 2003). One account of this pattern can be derived from the
current forecast (Wilson, Meyers, & Gilbert, 2001). In many framework developed by Robinson and Clore (2002) and adapted
hedonic applications, identical events are rare, inasmuch as no to the consumer context by Xu and Schwarz (2009). This model
two movies, vacations, meals, or concerts are experientially the states that, whereas consumers can reliably describe the hedonic
same. Thus, prior hedonic experiences may at best serve as crude nature of current experience, once the experience has ended its
reference points. And, even if past experiences were similar to nature can only be retrieved, not re-experienced. Episodic details
forecasted ones, the reliability of autobiographical memory can are partially retrievable in the short term, but even these details
be quite low in terms of the quantity, selectivity, and distortion rapidly fade and consumers must eventually rely on semantic
of remembrances (e.g., Schacter, 2002). Despite this lack of memory—or general knowledge—to reconstruct an episode. The
correspondence, the past is still a common prompt of decisions U-shaped time course of the extremity of experience results from
regarding future pleasure. the fact that “… our predictions of how we would feel while doing
X, global memories of how we usually feel while doing X, and research into hedonic consumption: comparing hedonic con-
reconstructions of how we really felt during a distant instance of sumption to its utilitarian counterpart.
doing X are all based on the same inputs—our general
knowledge and intuitions” (Schwarz & Xu, 2011, p.143). 3 Myopia and hyperopia
Schwarz and Xu's conclusion is interesting for its uneven As noted, much hedonic decision research examines when
correspondence to otherwise similar paradigms. On the one consumers are likely to choose a hedonic option over a utilitarian
hand, research has shown that recollected experience can be one, with a focus on understanding when people will act
distorted by higher-order beliefs. For example, consistent with myopically by putting their short-term (hedonic) interests ahead
traditional memory research (Alba & Hasher, 1983), Klaaren et of their long-term (utilitarian) ones. As discussed elsewhere
al. (1994) note that people who possess affective expectations (e.g., Wertenbroch, 2003), large and impressive literatures speak
prior to an event may either skew retrieval of details in the to consumer self-control and impulsiveness, often with observa-
direction of those expectations, distort the experienced valence tions about people's myopic tendencies. The line from this
of those details, and/or alter the weights of the details to be research to hedonic consumption is direct in that vices/wants/
consistent with expectations. Lay theories are also known to luxuries by their nature provide pleasure, so much so that
distort recollection, so that remembered experience is consis- consumers are often drawn to them at the expense of their
tent with one's beliefs about how that experience should have longer-term welfare. The general substance of this work is that,
felt at the time (e.g., Ross, 1989). Further, recollections can be because short-term pleasure is the appeal of a hedonic product,
tainted not only by the inherent dynamics of memory but also those aspects of a choice that increase the influence of emotions
by consumers' motivation to achieve particular objectives, such or urges on decision making and decrease self-control will
as when consumers retrieve and integrate different components increase myopic behavior. Such influences include but are not
of a desired experience in order to justify repeating that limited to: the temporal proximity of the decision (Milkman,
experience (Cowley, 2008). Rogers, & Bazerman, 2009, 2010; Rogers & Bazerman, 2007),
On the other hand, the assertion that hedonic recollection is whether the decision maker is in a visceral state (Loewenstein,
primarily reconstructive in nature runs counter to judgment- 1996; Read & Van Leeuwen, 1998), whether choices are made in
referral processes emphasized within the decision literature isolation or simultaneously (Bazerman et al., 1998; Read &
(see, e.g., Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988; Hastie & Park, 1986; Loewenstein, 1995; Read, Loewenstein, & Kalyanamaran, 1999),
Lynch, Marmorstein, & Weigold, 1988). These divergent whether consumers are prevention or promotion focused (Chernev,
results are not mutually exclusive but do suggest that additional 2004; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Dholakia, Gopinath, Bagozzi,
research regarding the difference between judgment and & Nataraajan, 2006), and whether consumers are under cognitive
emotion is necessary. Although judgment-referral is a robust load or otherwise distracted (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999).
phenomenon, it appears that emotionally tinged recollections A good deal of the work pitting hedonic and utilitarian options
may be less durable or resistant to revision, due either to their against each other in the context of consumer self-control has
physiological components (e.g., Loewenstein, 1996) or to a taken a more surprising approach by assuming that consumers
tendency to devote greater elaboration to present and future may occasionally swing too far in the other direction, prizing
emotion-laced events than to past experiences (Van Boven & utilitarian consumption over hedonic consumption that would
Ashworth, 2007). exert a greater impact on their general long-term welfare. Kivetz
and Simonson (2002a, 2002b; see also Keinan & Kivetz, 2008;
Kivetz & Keinan, 2006; Kivetz & Zheng, 2006) examined
Making trade-offs welfare-enhancing options and consumers' willingness to depart
from their natural frugality and prudence, in effect questioning
Because hedonic consumption is often costly to one's health the assumed virtue of self-control. The assumption is that
and well-being (and one's bank account), consumers must often consumers may be reluctant to purchase luxuries because luxuries
trade off their desire for pleasure with its potential conse- are less easily justified, especially in the presence of a less
quences. How effectively they are able to make these “wasteful” or “sinful” alternative. Although it is difficult to
calculations influences how “accurate” their decisions are. In identify the true rational or optimal decision in such subjective
this final section, we return to the most traditional area of contexts, such reluctance may lead consumers to engage in
self-defeating behavior by prizing consumption behaviors that
3
may not truly be in their long-term interest. Some particularly
It has been argued that people are slow to learn from these mistakes for at
prudent consumers are especially prone to this type of behavior,
least two memory-related reasons. First, because people's memory for a positive
outcome exceeds the actual experience (e.g., Wilson et al., 2003), they are
notably when feeling guilt from a previous indulgence (Haws &
unlikely to be circumspect about future extreme expectations. Second, an Poynor, 2008; Ramanathan & Williams, 2007).
affective form of hindsight bias may emerge, wherein people misrecall not only Of course, as the aforementioned findings regarding myopic
the experience but their predictions of their experience and, because recall of decision-making will attest, most consumers surely are not
those prior predictions may be based on one's current state, these recalled ascetics, and therefore it becomes necessary to reconcile the
predictions will appear more accurate than they truly are (Meyvis, Ratner, &
Levav, 2010; see also Xu & Schwarz, 2009). As with hindsight bias, people two inclinations by understanding the conditions under which
cannot be chastened by their own poor performance if they revise history to they might gravitate toward a utilitarian choice but still allow
indicate that their performance was good. themselves some hedonic advantage. Kivetz and Simonson
(2002a) report an increased willingness to choose the hedonic driving sales of utilitarian products, whereas nonmonetary
option over a dominating utilitarian one when the former can be promotions are relatively more effective at driving sales of
framed as a reward, is received later in time, has uncertainty hedonic products (Chandon et al., 2000; Park & Mowen, 2007).
around its occurrence (see also O'Curry & Strahilevitz, 2001), Similarly, consumers who are especially quality- or price-
is viewed in terms of its welfare-enhancing abilities, and is conscious are more prone to reduce their expenditures by
considered in the absence of a utilitarian reference point (see purchasing store brands, whereas those who tend to value
also Okada, 2005). Consumers who feel lower levels of guilt shopping enjoyment or make impulse decisions are more likely to
(as a trait) are less likely to resist hedonic consumption (Kivetz save money through promotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001).
& Zheng, 2006). Further, when allowed the benefit of
hindsight, consumers regret not having pursued pleasure in Conclusion
the past (Kivetz & Keinan, 2006) and can be prodded to pursue
pleasure in the present by cuing, in various ways, the likelihood Where do we stand after 30 years of research on hedonic
of future regret caused by foregoing it (Haws & Poynor, 2008; consumption? Awareness of the differences between hedonic and
Keinan & Kivetz, 2008). utilitarian products has provided a measure of predictability to
Hedonic options also may be chosen if they can be justified in researchers and practitioners wishing to address questions as
some manner. A hedonic purchase becomes relatively more diverse as how best to word advertising messages (e.g., Kronrod,
attractive when it is paired with a charitable incentive Grinstein, & Wathieu, 2012), how the method and amount of
(Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998) or a utilitarian gift for oneself or payment affects the type of product one purchases and consumes
a hedonic gift for another individual (Lee-Wingate & Corfman, (e.g., Bagchi & Block, 2011; Thomas, Desai, & Seenivasan, 2011),
2010), when consumers are able to pay for the purchase in effort which situations prompt consumers to exert self-determination
rather than money or the hedonic option is earned via effort, (e.g., Botti & McGill, 2011), and which preferences might be
good performance, or a previous act of altruism (Khan & Dhar, heritable versus learned (Simonson & Sela, 2011). Researchers
2006; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002b; Kivetz & Zheng, 2006; have also begun to build an understanding of how consumers recall
Okada, 2005), when the time frame for consumption is short or and enjoy past hedonic consumption, and how they make
limited and thus prevents contemplation of the costs of predictions about their future enjoyment of products and
consumption (Shu & Gneezy, 2010), when receiving the hedonic experiences, with the hope that they can be encouraged to make
product is framed as a windfall (O'Curry & Strahilevitz, 2001), choices that will make them happier in the future.
especially if the gain is obtained under positive, feel-good However, just as psychology at large has been accused of
circumstances (Levav & McGraw, 2009), and when it is paired focusing too much on process at the expense of an examination of
at a discounted price with a utilitarian product (Khan & Dhar, the important domains of human experience (e.g., Rozin, 2006), so
2010). too have consumer behavior researchers carefully studied what
hedonic consumption is (and is not) and what determines
Pricing pleasure enjoyment while often overlooking what it is that truly brings
Consumers make trade-offs not only between different types consumers pleasure and how they seek hedonic experiences in their
of consumption, but also between hedonic consumption and the day-to-day lives. By focusing on fine-grained distinctions between
resources necessary to procure it—namely, its price. Price types of products and specific features of the consumption
promotions vary in terms of the benefits they convey, with environment, researchers have at times overlooked pleasure itself,
monetary promotions providing more utilitarian benefits and the ultimate goal of hedonic consumption, and how it exists “in the
nonmonetary promotions providing more hedonic benefits wild.” This is not to say that researchers should abandon
(Chandon et al., 2000). Moreover, consumers are more willing examination of the processes by which consumers perceive and
to trade-off price for other product features within the domain experience hedonic pursuits; these topics remain vitally important.
of hedonic goods than in the domain of functional goods for at Nor is it to say that small-scale independent and dependent
least two reasons: (1) consumers use purchase quantity to variables are always undesirable. Although researchers should
self-impose consumption constraints, such that they are willing strive to demonstrate the commonality between a candy bar in the
to forgo quantity discounts and purchase vice-type products in lab and a 5-course tasting at a luxurious restaurant, consumers do
smaller amounts in order to enforce reduced consumption partake of many small pleasures with modest expectations. It is not
(Wertenbroch, 1998). Consumers also prefer a price discount to unreasonable, however, to suggest that the next 30 years of
a bonus pack for a vice good because they cannot justify getting hedonic consumption research could be more fruitfully spent
more of a vice good than they would already obtain; hence, exploring some of life's more meaningful or memorable pleasures.
they prefer alleviating guilt over their purchase by spending A sharper focus on pleasure, as consumers seek and experience
less money on the default quantity (Mishra & Mishra, 2011). it, unlocks many potentially interesting lines of research. For
(2) Consumers purchasing for pleasure care less about the price instance, it is readily apparent that people seek out and even enjoy
of that pleasure and consequently are more price inelastic for objectively unpleasant experiences. They eat bitter chocolate and
hedonic goods, whereas consumers making utilitarian purchases hot chilies (sometimes both at once); they get painful tattoos; they
wish to get the most useful product for its price (Wakefield & run marathons; they watch terrifying movies. Previous research has
Inman, 2003). Typically, hedonic price-insensitivity means that begun to examine whether people can simultaneously experience
monetary promotions tend to be relatively more effective at pleasure along with any number of negative emotions, including
fear and pain (e.g., Andrade & Cohen, 2007). Inquiry has also Ariely, D., & Zauberman, G. (2000). On the making of an experience: The
begun on the not-purely-pleasant experiences that people undergo effects of breaking and combining experiences on their overall evaluation.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 219–232.
in order to prove to others or themselves that they could do them Ariely, D., & Zauberman, G. (2003). Differential partitioning of extended
(Keinan & Kivetz, 2011). What is it about such experiences that experiences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91,
people enjoy: the sense of accomplishment? the contrast to other 128–139.
experiences? the pain or fear itself? Are they enjoyed more in Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations.
Journal of Retailing, 79, 77–95.
retrospect or in the moment, alone or socially? In a similar vein,
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and
consumers often strive to create things themselves that they could the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 24–45.
simply purchase: picking apples at an orchard, building their own Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring
furniture, making baby quilts, knitting sweaters. Self-manufactured hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20,
products do strike their makers as being more valuable than an 644–656.
identical object made by another person (Norton, Mochon, & Bagchi, R., & Block, L. G. (2011). Chocolate cake please! Why do consumers
indulge more when it feels more expensive? Journal of Public Policy &
Ariely, 2012). From where does this value arise? How do Marketing, 30, 294–306.
consumers determine the value of their time? Do the hobbies that Bar-Anan, Y., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. G. (2009). The feeling of
result in something functional (e.g., knitting, cooking) differ from uncertainty intensifies affective reactions. Emotion, 9, 123–127.
those in which the hobby is an end to itself (e.g., building model Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources
trains, folding origami)? Finally, what drives amateurs who labor of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159–170.
Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating
to master a skill like woodworking or candy-making or to with yourself and losing: Making decisions with competing internal
understand and appreciate a particular domain like wine or preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23, 225–241.
Japanese anime but have no professional goal in mind? We Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer
discussed the effect that expertise has on enjoyment of a mastered Research, 15, 139–168.
domain, but consumers often seem to enjoy being an expert in and Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity
signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 121–134.
of itself. And they often choose domains to master that are Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption.
off-putting or inaccessible to novices: wines and beers, science Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 555–569.
fiction, sports statistics, acid jazz. Which domains lend themselves Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the
to this kind of expertise, and do they differ in fundamental ways centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal
from more accessible and widely shared areas of fandom? And, has of Consumer Research, 29, 551–565.
Bloom, P. (2010). How pleasure works. New York: Norton.
the nature and meaning of these kinds of expertise changed in the Bohm, G., & Pfister, H. -R. (1996). Instrumental or emotional evaluations:
last decade, when anyone with an internet connection can become What determines preference? Acta Psychologica, 93, 135–148.
a “geek,” as some have argued (Kreider, 2011; Oswalt, 2010)? Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). The locus of choice: Personal causality and
These questions illustrate how the last 30 years of research satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian purchases. Journal of Consumer
Research, 37, 1065–1078.
have produced many insights but a still wide-open landscape.
Braun, K. A. (1999). Postexperience advertising effects on consumer memory.
We hope that a renewed focus on pleasure as it exists inside and Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 319–334.
outside the laboratory and on its own merits proves fruitful for Buehler, R., & McFarland, C. (2001). Intensity bias in affective forecasting:
researchers and for consumers. Future research can reveal more The role of temporal focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
about when, where, and why consumers find pleasure in the 1480–1493.
things that they do—questions that cut to the core of what it Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and
experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
means to be happy, and human. 146–159.
Celsi, R. L., Rose, R. L., & Leigh, T. W. (1993). An exploration of high-risk
leisure consumption through skydiving. Journal of Consumer Research, 20,
References 1–23.
Chaker, A. M. (2011). The pampered countertop. Wall Street Journal [February
Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value- 9].
conscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand promotions. Chan, E., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2010). When choosing makes a good thing
Journal of Marketing, 65, 71–89. better: Temporal variations in the valuation of hedonic consumption.
Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 497–507.
Bulletin, 93, 203–231. Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64,
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454. 65–81.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The power of small wins. Harvard Chattopadhyay, A., & Alba, J. W. (1988). The situational importance of recall
Business Review, 89, 71–80. and inference in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Research, 15, 1–12.
Andrade, E. B., & Cohen, J. B. (2007). On the consumption of negative Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of
feelings. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 283–300. Consumer Psychology, 14, 141–150.
Ariely, D., & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and
road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of
279–290. Retailing, 77, 511–535.
Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How the
sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs
Making, 27, 87–98. mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 702–714.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P.
role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72, 48–63. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting.
Cohen, L. (1995). Quality function deployment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617–638.
Cotte, J. (1997). Chances, trances, and lots of slots: Gambling motives and Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P.
consumption experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 380–406. (2002). Durability bias in affective forecasting. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, &
Cowley, E. (2007). How enjoyable was it? Remembering an affective reaction to a D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive
previous consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 494–505. judgment (pp. 292–312). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cowley, E. (2008). The perils of hedonic editing. Journal of Consumer Research, Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2005). Miswanting: Some problems in the
34, 71–84. forecasting of future affective states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and
Crossen, C. (2006). Whether people define themselves as happy depends on the thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 178–197). New York:
era. Wall Street Journal [March 6]. Cambridge University Press.
Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Hughes, K. R. (1992). Measuring Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness: How,
hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitudes toward product categories. when, and why happiness is not always good. Perspectives on Psychological
Marketing Letters, 3, 239–249. Science, 6, 222–233.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow. New York: Harper. Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008a). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on
DeLeire, T., & Kalil, A. (2010). Does consumption buy happiness? Evidence the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing
from the United States. International Review of Economics, 57, 163–176. Research, 45, 379–389.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008b). Art and the brand: The role of visual art in
utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60–71. enhancing brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 212–222.
Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R. (2006). The Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic
role of regulatory focus in the experience of self-control of desire for potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19,
temptations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 163–175. 608–618.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment
proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. depends on whether the judgment is memory-based or on-line. Psychological
Ditto, P. H., Pizarro, D. A., Epstein, E. B., Jacobsen, J. A., & MacDonald, T. K. Review, 93, 258–268.
(2006). Visceral influences on risk-taking behavior. Journal of Behavioral Haws, K. L., & Poynor, C. (2008). Seize the day! Encouraging indulgence for
Decision Making, 19, 99–113. the hyperopic consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 680–691.
Dunn, E. W., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2011). If money doesn't make Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging
you happy, then you probably aren't spending it right. Journal of Consumer concepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92–101.
Psychology, 21, 115–125. Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. -W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity
Ebert, J. E. J., & Meyvis, T. (in preparation). Psychological distance in hedonic of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221–233.
prediction and consumption: The surprising impact of distant events. Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: More than meets the tongue.
Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2010). The effects of advertising copy on sensory Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 490–498.
thoughts and perceived taste. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 748–756. Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2008). A role for aesthetics in consumer psychology. In C.
Elster, J., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Utility from memory and anticipation. In P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer
G. Loewenstein, & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 213–234). New psychology (pp. 733–754). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
York: Russell Sage Foundation. Holbrook, M. B., Chestnut, R. W., Oliva, T. A., & Greenleaf, E. A. (1984). Play as a
Ferraro, R., Shiv, B., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow consumption experience: The roles of emotions, performance, and personality in
we shall die: Effects of mortality salience and self-esteem on self-regulation in the enjoyment of games. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 728–739.
consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 65–75. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of
Finkenauer, C., Gallucci, M., van Dijk, W. W., & Pollmann, M. (2007). consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer
Investigating the role of time in affective forecasting: Temporal influences Research, 9, 132–140.
on forecasting accuracy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, Hopkinson, G. C., & Pujari, D. (1999). A factor analytic study of the sources of
1152–1166. meaning in hedonic consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 273–290.
Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, Hsee, C. K., Abelson, R. P., & Salovey, P. (1991). The relative weighting of
E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic position and velocity in satisfaction. Psychological Science, 2, 263–266.
psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don't we
Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: choose what makes us happy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 31–37.
The importance of peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cognition and Hsee, C. K., & Tsai, C. I. (2008). Hedonomics in consumer behavior. In C. P.
Emotion, 14, 577–606. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer
Fredrickson, B. L., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Duration neglect in retrospective psychology (pp. 639–657). New York: Erlbaum.
evaluations of affective episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Igou, E. R. (2004). Lay theories in affective forecasting: The progression of
Psychology, 65, 45–55. affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 528–534.
Fusilli, J. (2012). Meet the Gee-Bees. Wall Street Journal [January 5]. Inman, J. J. (2001). The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety
Galak, J., Kruger, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2011). Is variety the spice of life? It all seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 105–120.
depends on the rate of consumption. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, Jin, B., & Sternquist, B. (2004). Shopping is truly a joy. Service Industries
230–238. Journal, 24, 1–18.
Galak, J., Kruger, J., & Loewenstein, G. (forthcoming). Slow down! Insensitivity to Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor & Francis.
rate of consumption leads to avoidable satiation. Journal of Consumer Research. Joy, A., & Sherry, J. F., Jr. (2003). Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A
Galak, J., Redden, J. P., & Kruger, J. (2009). Variety amnesia: Recalling past multisensory approach to understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of
variety can accelerate recovery from satiation. Journal of Consumer Consumer Research, 30, 259–282.
Research, 36, 575–584. Kahn, B. E. (1995). Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services: An
Geers, A. L., & Lassiter, G. D. (1999). Affective expectations and information integrative review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2, 139–148.
gain: Evidence for assimilation and contrast effects in affective experience. Kahn, B. E., & Wansink, B. (2004). The influence of assortment structure on
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 394–413. perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer
Gilbert, D. T., Gill, M. J., & Wilson, T. D. (2002). The future is now: Temporal Research, 30, 519–533.
correction in affective forecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Decision Processes, 88, 430–444. Giroux.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Levine, L. L., & Safer, M. A. (2002). Sources of bias in memory for emotions.
Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 169–173.
1908–1910. Levy, S. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37, 117–124.
Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price
what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 187–200. perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of
Keinan, A., & Kivetz, R. (2008). Remedying hyperopia: The effects of Marketing Research, 30, 234–245.
self-control regret on consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, Linden, D. J. (2011). The pleasure compass. New York: Viking.
45, 676–689. Lindstrom, M. (2011). Brandwashed. New York: Crown.
Keinan, A., & Kivetz, R. (2011). Productivity orientation and the consumption Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity–extremity effect and age-based
of collectable experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 935–950. stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193–210.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption.
aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 297–314. The Economic Journal, 97, 666–684.
Kemp, S., Burt, C. D. B., & Furneaux, L. (2008). A test of the peak-end rule with Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior.
extended autobiographical sequences. Memory & Cognition, 36, 132–138. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.
Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Loewenstein, G., & Angner, E. (2003). Predicting and indulging changing
Marketing Research, 43, 259–266. preference. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Eds.), Time and
Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2010). Price-framing effects on the purchase of hedonic decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice
and utilitarian bundles. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1090–1099. (pp. 351–391). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Khan, U., Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). A behavioral decision theory Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1991). Negative time preference. AEA Papers
perspective on hedonic and utilitarian choice. In S. Ratneshwar, & D. G. and Proceedings, 81, 347–352.
Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption: Consumer motives, goals, and desires Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of
(pp. 144–165). New York: Routledge. outcomes. Psychological Review, 100, 91–108.
Kim, H., Park, K., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Will this trip really be exciting? The Loewenstein, G., & Schkade, D. (1999). Wouldn't it be nice? Predicting future
role of incidental emotions in product evaluation. Journal of Consumer feelings. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The
Research, 36, 983–991. foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 85–105). New York: Russell Sage
Kivetz, R., & Keinan, A. (2006). Repenting hyperopia: An analysis of Foundation.
self-control regrets. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 273–282. Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Living with uncertainty: Attractiveness
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002a). Self-control for the righteous: Toward a and resolution timing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13,
theory of precommitment to indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 179–190.
29, 199–217. Loveland, K. E., Smeesters, D., & Mandel, N. (2008). Still preoccupied with
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002b). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a 1995: The need to belong and preference for nostalgic products. Journal of
determinant of customer preferences toward frequency programs. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 393–408.
Marketing Research, 39, 199–217. Lynch, J. G., Jr., Marmorstein, H., & Weigold, M. F. (1988). Choices from sets
Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. (2006). Determinants of justification and self-control. including remembered brands: Use of recalled attributes and prior overall
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135, 572–587. evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 169–184.
Klaaren, J. K., Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1994). The role of affective Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. S., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness:
expectations in subjective experience and decision-making. Social Cognition, The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9,
12, 77–101. 111–131.
Kreider, T. (2011). In praise of not knowing. New York Times [http://www. MacInnis, D. J., Patrick, V. M., & Park, C. W. (2006). Looking through the
nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19Kreider.html] crystal ball: Affective forecasting and misforecasting in consumer behavior.
Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research, vol. 2. (pp. 43–80)
senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Bingley, UK: Emerald Insight.
Psychology, 22, 332–351. Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of
Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Enjoy! Hedonic consumption the consumption experience: Evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal
and compliance with assertive messages. Journal of Consumer Research, of Consumer Research, 20, 451–466.
39, 51–61. McAlister, L., & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behavior: An
Kubovy, M. (1999). On the pleasures of the mind. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 311–322.
& N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., &
(pp. 134–154). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Montague, P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for
Kumar, M., & Garg, N. (2010). Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44, 379–387.
appraisals: How much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? Journal Meyvis, T., Ratner, R. K., & Levav, J. (2010). Why don't we learn to accurately
of Consumer Psychology, 20, 485–494. forecast feelings? How misremembering our predictions blinds us to past
Lageat, T., Czellar, S., & Laurent, G. (2003). Engineering hedonic attributes to forecasting errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 139, 579–589.
generate perceptions of luxury: Consumer perceptions of an everyday Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Highbrow films gather
sound. Marketing Letters, 14, 97–109. dust: Time-inconsistent preferences and online DVD rentals. Management
Lakshmanan, A., & Krishnan, H. S. (2011). The aha! experience: Insight and Science, 55, 1047–1059.
discontinuous learning in product usage. Journal of Marketing, 75, 105–123. Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). I'll have the ice cream
LaTour, K. A., & LaTour, M. S. (2010). Bridging aficionados' perceptual and soon and the vegetables later: A study of online grocery purchases and order
conceptual knowledge to enhance how they learn from experience. Journal lead time. Marketing Letters, 21, 17–35.
of Consumer Research, 37, 688–697. Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986a). Effects of affective and cognitive focus on
Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you'll like it: The influence of the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social
expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Psychology, 51, 270–276.
Science, 17, 1054–1058. Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986b). Thought-induced attitude change: The
Lee-Wingate, S. N., & Corfman, K. P. (2010). A little something for me and maybe effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and
for you, too: Promotions that relieve guilt. Marketing Letters, 21, 385–395. Social Psychology, 51, 259–269.
Levav, J., & McGraw, A. P. (2009). Emotional accounting: How feelings about Mishra, A., & Mishra, H. (2011). The influence of price discount versus bonus pack
money influence consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, on the preference for virtue and vice foods. Journal of Marketing Research, 48,
66–80. 196–206.
Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Cronk, R. (1997). Temporal Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feeling in
adjustments in the evaluation of events: The ‘rosy view’. Journal of decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 144–159.
Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 421–448. Phillips, D. M., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). The role of consumption
Mlodinow, L. (2009). A hint of hype, a taste of illusion. Wall Street Journal emotions in the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
[November 14]. 12, 243–252.
Mogilner, C., Aaker, J., & Kamvar, S. D. (2012). How happiness impacts Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions
choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 429–443. can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Pro-
Morewedge, C. K., Gilbert, D. T., Myrseth, K. O. R., Kassam, K. S., & Wilson, T. ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 1050–1054.
D. (2010). Consuming experience: Why affective forecasters overestimate Pollai, M., Hoelzl, E., & Possas, F. (2010). Consumption-related emotions over
comparative value. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, time: Fit between prediction and experience. Marketing Letters, 21,
986–992. 397–411.
Morewedge, C. K., Huh, Y. E., & Vosgerau, J. (2010). Thought for food: Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting
Imagined consumption reduces actual consumption. Science, 330, 1530–1533. of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17, 4–28.
Murray, K. B., & Bellman, S. (2011). Productive play time: The effect of Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E. A. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should the
practice on consumer demand for hedonic experiences. Journal of the shape of the package be? Journal of Marketing, 70, 95–107.
Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 376–391. Raghunathan, R., & Corfman, K. (2006). Is happiness shared doubled and
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The construction of meaning sadness shared halved? Social influences on enjoyment of hedonic
through vital involvement. In L. M. Corey, & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 386–394.
Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 83–104). Washington, DC: Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = tasty
American Psychological Association. intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food
Nelson, L. D., & Meyvis, T. (2008). Interrupted consumption: Disrupting adaptation products. Journal of Marketing, 70, 170–184.
to hedonic experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 654–664. Ramanathan, S., & Williams, P. (2007). Immediate and delayed consequences
Nevid, J. S. (1981). Effects of brand labeling on ratings of product quality. of indulgence: The moderating influence of personality types on mixed
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 407–410. emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 212–223.
Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2011). Celebrity contagion and Ratner, R. K., & Kahn, B. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public
the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 215–228. consumption on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,
Nicolao, L., Irwin, J. R., & Goodman, J. K. (2009). Happiness for sale: Do 29, 246–257.
experiential purchases make consumers happier than material purchases? Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, K. (1999). Choosing less-preferred
Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 188–198. experiences for the sake of variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 1–15.
Noble, C. H., & Kumar, M. (2010). Exploring the appeal of product design: A Read, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1995). Diversification bias: Explaining the
grounded, value-based model of key design elements and relationships. discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separate choices.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 640–657. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 1, 34–49.
Nordgren, L. F., van der Pligt, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2006). Visceral drives in Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Kalyanamaran, S. (1999). Mixing virtue and vice:
retrospect. Psychological Science, 17, 635–640. Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic. Journal
Nordgren, L. F., van der Pligt, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2008). The instability of of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 257–273.
health cognitions: Visceral states influence self-efficacy and related health Read, D., & Van Leeuwen, B. (1998). Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite
beliefs. Health Psychology, 27, 722–727. and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. New York: Perseus. Processes, 76, 189–205.
Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The IKEA effect: When labor Redden, J. P. (2008). Reducing satiation: The role of categorization level.
leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 453–460. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 624–634.
Noseworthy, T. J., & Trudel, R. (2011). Looks interesting, but what does it do? Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, R., & Weber, B. (2010).
Evaluation of incongruent product form depends on positioning. Journal of Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological
Marketing Research, 48, 1008–1019. investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 431–441.
Novemsky, N., & Ratner, R. K. (2003). The time course and impact of Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an
consumers' erroneous beliefs about hedonic contrast effects. Journal of accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
Consumer Research, 29, 507–516. 934–960.
Nowlis, S. M., Mandel, N., & McCabe, D. B. (2004). The effect of a delay Rode, E., Rozin, P., & Durlach, P. (2007). Experienced and remembered
between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment. Journal of pleasure for meals: Duration neglect but minimal peak, end (recency) or
Consumer Research, 31, 502–510. primacy effects. Appetite, 49, 18–29.
O'Curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. (2001). Probability and mode of acquisition Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Future lock-in: Future implementation
effects on choices between hedonic and utilitarian options. Marketing increases selection of “should” choices. Organizational Behavior and
Letters, 12, 37–49. Human Decision Processes, 106, 1–20.
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Buyer's remorse or missed
utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 43–53. opportunity? Differential regrets for material and experiential purchases.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and con- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 215–223.
sequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal
460–469. histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357.
Oswalt, P. (2010). Wake up, geek culture. Time to die. Wired [http://www. Ross, W. T., & Simonson, I. (1991). Evaluations of pairs of experiences: A
wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_angrynerd_geekculture/all/1] preference for happy endings. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4,
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: 273–282.
The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Rozin, P. (1999). Preadaptation and the puzzles and properties of pleasure. In D.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 185–193. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of
Park, S., & Mowen, J. C. (2007). Replacement purchase decisions: On the hedonic psychology (pp. 109–133). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
effects of trade-ins, hedonic versus utilitarian usage goals, and tightwadism. Rozin, P. (2006). Domain denigration and process preference in academic
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 123–131. psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 365–376.
Patrick, V. M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2007). Not as happy as I thought Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A
I'd be? Affective misforecasting and product evaluations. Journal of review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review
Consumer Research, 33, 479–489. of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Sackett, A. M., Meyvis, T., Nelson, L. D., Converse, B. A., & Sackett, A. L. Vosgerau, J., Wertenbroch, K., & Carmon, Z. (2006). Indeterminacy and live
(2010). You're having fun when time flies: The hedonic consequences of television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 487–495.
subjective time progression. Psychological Science, 21, 111–117. Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the
Schacter, D. L. (2002). The seven sins of memory: How the brain remembers hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of
and forgets. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Marketing Research, 40, 310–320.
Schwarz, N., & Xu, J. (2011). Why don't we learn from poor choices? The Wakefield, K. L., & Inman, J. J. (2003). Situational price sensitivity: The role of
consistency of expectation, choice, and memory clouds the lesson of consumption occasion, social context, and income. Journal of Retailing, 79,
experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 142–145. 199–212.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology Wallenstein, G. (2009). The pleasure instinct. New York: Wiley.
to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press. Wang, J., Novemsky, N., & Dhar, R. (2009). Anticipating adaptation to
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 149–159.
happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press. Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing quantities of
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). Achieving sustainable gains in virtue and vice. Marketing Science, 17, 317–337.
happiness: Change your actions, not your circumstances. Journal of Wertenbroch, K. (2003). Self-rationing: Self-control in consumer choice. In G.
Happiness Studies, 7, 55–86. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Eds.), Time and decision: Economic
Sherry, J. F., Jr. (1990). A sociocultural analysis of a Midwestern American flea and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (pp. 491–516). New
market. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 13–30. York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of West, P. M., Brown, C. L., & Hoch, S. J. (1996). Consumption vocabulary and
affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer preference formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 120–135.
Research, 26, 278–291. Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia:
Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2004). The effects of distractions while tasting a Content, triggers, functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
food sample: The interplay of informational and affective components in 91, 975–993.
subsequent choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 599–608. Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., Kermer, D. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005).
Shu, S. B., & Gneezy, A. (2010). Procrastination of enjoyable experiences. The pleasures of uncertainty: Prolonging positive moods in ways
Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 933–944. people do not anticipate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Simonson, I. (1990). The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety- ogy, 88, 5–21.
seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 150–162. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P. Zanna
Simonson, I., & Sela, A. (2011). On the heritability of consumer decision making: An (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 35. (pp. 345–411)
exploratory approach for studying genetic effects on judgment and choice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 951–966. Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to
Snell, J., Gibbs, B. J., & Varey, C. (1995). Intuitive hedonics: Consumer want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 131–134.
beliefs about the dynamics of liking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 33–60. Wilson, T. D., & Klaaren, K. J. (1992). “Expectation whirls me round”: The
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase role of affective expectations on affective experience. In M. S. Clark (Ed.),
incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion and social behavior,
Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 434–446. vol. 14. (pp. 1–31)Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sujan, M., Bettman, J. R., & Baumgartner, H. (1993). Influencing consumer Wilson, T. D., Lisle, D. J., Kraft, D., & Wetzel, C. G. (1989). Preferences as
judgments using autobiographical memories: A self-referencing perspective. expectation-driven inferences: Effects of affective expectations on
Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 422–436. affective experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Thomas, M., Desai, K. K., & Seenivasan, S. (2011). How credit card payments 56, 519–530.
increase unhealthy food purchases: Visceral regulation of vices. Journal of Wilson, T. D., Meyers, J., & Gilbert, D. T. (2001). Lessons from the past: Do
Consumer Research, 38, 126–139. people learn from experience that emotional reactions are short-lived?
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature fatigue: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1648–1661.
When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Wilson, T. D., Meyers, J., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). ‘How happy was I, anyway?’
Marketing Research, 42, 431–442. A retrospective impact bias. Social Cognition, 21, 421–446.
Townsend, C., & Shu, S. B. (2010). When and how aesthetics influences Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T. P., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D.
financial decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 452–458. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting.
Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2005). Disability and sunshine: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 821–836.
Can hedonic predictions be improved by drawing attention to focusing Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring
illusions or emotional adaptation? Journal of Experimental Psychology. break? The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience in future
Applied, 11, 111–123. choice. Psychological Science, 14, 520–524.
Van Boven, L. (2005). Experientialism, materialism, and the pursuit of Wood, S. L., & Bettman, J. R. (2007). Predicting happiness: How normative
happiness. Review of General Psychology, 9, 132–142. feeling rules influence (and even reverse) durability bias. Journal of
Van Boven, L., & Ashworth, L. (2007). Looking forward, looking back: Consumer Psychology, 17, 188–201.
Anticipation is more evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Xu, J., & Schwarz, N. (2009). Do we really need a reason to indulge? Journal of
Psychology, 136, 289–300. Marketing Research, 46, 25–36.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Zauberman, G., Ratner, R. K., & Kim, B. K. (2008). Memories as assets:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1193–1202. Strategic memory protection in choice over time. Journal of Consumer
Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive Research, 35, 715–728.
states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1159–1168. Zhao, M., & Tsai, C. I. (2011). The effects of duration knowledge on forecasted
Van Boven, L., White, K., & Huber, M. (2009). Immediacy bias in emotion versus actual affective experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 38,
perception: Current emotions seem more intense than previous emotions. 525–534.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138, 368–382. Zhou, X., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Shi, K., & Feng, C. (2012).
Venkatesh, A., & Meamber, L. A. (2008). The aesthetics of consumption and the Nostalgia: The gift that keeps on giving. Journal of Consumer Research,
consumer as an aesthetic subject. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 11, 45–70. 39(1), 39–50.

Alba 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alba 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alba 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 1 (2013) 2 – 18

Keywords: Hedonic consumption; Pleasure; Decision making; Happiness

Introduction than its cleaning ability (Chaker, 2011); a prototypically hedonic

You might also like