Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 166 171

Research Dialogue
From experiential psychology to consumer experience
Bernd Schmitt a,, J. Joko Brakus b , Lia Zarantonello c
a
Columbia University, USA
b
University of Leeds, UK
c
University of Bath, UK

Received 1 September 2014; accepted 14 September 2014

Available online 23 September 2014

Abstract

We comment on Gilovich and colleagues' program of research on happiness resulting from experiential versus material purchases, and critique
these authors' interpretation that people derive more happiness from experiences than from material possessions. Unlike goods, experiences cannot
be purchased, and possessions versus experiences do not seem to form the endpoints of the same continuum. As an alternative, we present a
consumer-experience model that views materialism and experientialism as two separate dimensions whose effects on consumer happiness, both in
the form of pleasure and in the form of meaning, depend on the type of brand experiences evoked. Thus, a good life in a consumerist society means
integrating material and experiential consumptions rather than shifting spending from material to experiential purchases.
2014 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Experiential psychology; Consumer experience; Materialism; Experientialism

About 10 years ago, psychologist Tom Gilovich and one of
his colleagues published an article titled To do or to have?
That is the question in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, which marked the start of a research program
comparing material and experiential purchases (Van Boven &
Gilovich, 2003). Based on a review of this research and the
consistent finding that people derive more satisfaction from
experiential purchases than material purchases, Gilovich,
Kumar, and Jampol (2015) have presented a broad based
critique of consumerist society, recommending that consumers
should shift their consumption from material goods toward
experiences and that communities and governments should
encourage experiential pursuits.
While the distinction between material and experiential
purchases may seem to be novel in social psychology, the
This article was written, in part, when Bernd Schmitt was the Executive
Director of ACI (the Institute on Asian Consumer Insight) in Singapore.
Corresponding author at: Columbia Business School, Columbia University,
3022 Broadway, 518 Uris Hall, New York, NY 10027, USA.
E-mail address: bhs1@columbia.edu (B. Schmitt).
experiential and material aspects of purchase and consumption
have been studied for decades in consumer psychology. Long
before the work of Gilovich and his co-researchers, Hirschman
and Holbrook wrote a series of classic and widely cited papers
conceptualizing the experiential aspects of consumption
(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook & Hirschman,
1982). Their work was followed up in the late 1990s by related
theoretical work on experiential versus instrumental modes of
consumer decision-making (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Pham,
1998), and theoretical and applied work on experiential
marketing and the experience economy (Pine & Gilmore,
1999; Schmitt, 1999). Consumer psychology and marketing
scholars have also studied brand experiences and related
phenomena such as brand attachment, brand relationships,
and brand love (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012; Brakus,
Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Fournier, 1998; Keller, 2003;
Park, Eisingerich, & Park, 2013; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park,
2005). In parallel, there has been significant research on
consumer materialism (Belk, 1985; Richins & Dawson, 1992).
As consumer psychologists and experiential marketing
scholars, we are no doubt delighted to see that psychologists

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.09.001
1057-7408/ 2014 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 B. Schmitt et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 166171
have come to acknowledge the importance of experiences in
people's daily lives. We welcome Gilovich et al.'s (2015) overall
recommendation of experientializing various aspects of our
personal lives and lives as consumers. However, we feel that the
research program by Gilovich and his co-authors is misguided by
a false dichotomy between material and experiential purchases,
and promotes an ideology that equates material possessions with
materialism. As a result, they recommend that consumers should
forego the fleeting joy of material possessions for more
substantial contributions to well-being (p. 3) because the benefits
of material abundance in a consumerist society have come at
a significant psychological cost (p. 2). Based on our own
decade-long program of research on experiential consumption and
experiential marketing (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zhang, 2014; Brakus
et al., 2009; Schmitt & Zarantonello, 2013; Zarantonello, Jedidi, &
Schmitt, 2013), we have arrived at a different conclusion. Living a
good life in a consumerist society is not about a contrast or
trade-off between material possessions and experiences. Material
possessions (commercial goods and services), and in particular
brands, are inherently part of our lives and embracing them can
create pleasurable and meaningful moments of happiness.
Material versus experiential purchases: A false dichotomy
The dichotomy between what Gilovich and his co-researchers
have called material purchases versus experiential purchases
is problematic in several ways. Conceptually, the two types of
purchases are quite different; moreover, the two constructs do
not seem to be at the opposite ends of the same continuum.
Empirically, there seem to be confounding factors that cast doubt
about the view that material possessions and experiences rather
than some other constructs such as (in)tangibility or self-construal
are the main driving force behind the results summarized in the
Gilovich and colleagues' target article. Most importantly, the
conceptual category that is most relevant for consumer psychol-
ogists and marketersexperiential products, while acknowledged,
has been entirely left out of Gilovich and colleagues' empirical
research. We offer some observations and clarifications below.
Material goods can be bought and sold; experiences cannot
Gilovich et al. (2015) argue that research participants
readily understand the distinction between material and
experiential purchases. The fact that research participants
seem to understand the distinction does not mean that the
distinction is conceptually and theoretically meaningful. When
consumers engage in a material purchase, they purchase and
acquire a physical good and pays for its features and quality. In
contrast, when consumers engage in so-called experiential
purchases, they do not purchase an experience per se. An
experience may occur after the purchase as part of a
self-generated, internal, psychological process. If Gilovich
and colleagues' material and experiential purchases were
conceptually on an equal footing, one should be able to change
the direction of the exchange and be able to ask consumers to
imagine selling their experiences (and their goods) at a flea
167
market or online. Obviously, people can sell their goods at a
flea market or on online, but not sell their experiences.
A phrase such as acquiring a life experience is a metaphor.
When dining outone frequently-used example of experien-
tial purchase in this researchconsumers buy food, drinks,
and service from a service provider. They may also get the
company of another person, a stimulating conversationand
perhaps a kiss. But they only buy and pay for the food, drink,
and service, and perhaps dining in a particular atmosphere.
However, they do not pay for the company of a friend, the
conversations with a business associate, or the intimacy of a
date. For other experiences, too, that are frequently mentioned
in this line of research, say a vacation, consumers also pay only
for the tangible items (e.g., the airline ticket to be transported to
a destination, the hotel to stay in, the tour guide to be shown
around with, and food and beverage). They do not pay, for
example, for viewing a sunset from the plane, or feeling
energized during a bike ride, or seeing the Eiffel Tower from
Trocadero (although they may pay for a view of Trocadero
from the Eiffel Tower). Indeed it would be odd to say, I am
sorry, I did not enjoy the sunset, or the bike ride, or the view of
the Eiffel Tower; and therefore I want my money back!
Consumers understand that, although they may play along with
the experimenter's metaphorical instructions; but it is up to the
researchers as scientist to sort out the conceptual ambiguity. To
be sure, it is entirely legitimate, and valuable, to study the
psychological processes that tend to be invoked by experi-
ences and material goods (Gilovich et al., 2015, p. 4). But
experiences and material goods are not comparable types
of purchases, and thus it is not clear what is being examined,
from a consumer psychology perspective, when the psycho-
logical processes that tend to be induced more by one type of
purchase than the other (Gilovich et al., 2015, p. 4) are being
studied.
Extraordinary experiences versus ordinary possessions
Another issue concerns the explanations provided to research
participants for material and experiential purchases, and the
potential biases that these instructions might induce. Experiential
purchases have been described as those made with the primary
intention of acquiring a life experience: an event or series of
events that one lives through (Gilovich et al., 2015, p. 3).
Despite the subsequent qualifier, the term life experience seems
to imply, or at least prime, an experience that lasts in memory and
is significant for the individual for personal development and
growth. Such extraordinary experiences have been referred to as
peak experiences (Maslow, 1964) or as epiphanic experi-
ences (Denzin, 1992). They include reaching life milestones,
travel and culture, romantic love, and social relationships
(Bhattacharjee & Mogilner, 2014). Note that most of them are
purely psychological and have nothing to do with commercial
exchanges.
In contrast, when asked about material purchases, partici-
pants were asked about spending money with the primary
intention of acquiring a material possessiona tangible object
that you obtain and keep in your possession (Van Boven &
168 B. Schmitt et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 166171

Gilovich, 2003, p. 1194). This instruction does not imply
anything special, extraordinary, or lasting for a lifetime. Indeed,
many of the purchases that participants list (e.g., clothing,
laptops, and televisions) are fairly ordinary goods that can be
replaced and are usually kept in possession for a short period of
time. They are not extraordinary lifetime purchases, such as a
precious piece of jewelry, a painting, a vintage car, or a house.
Significant material possessions can be central to consumers, by
extending, expanding, and strengthening their sense of self (Belk,
1988) and may result in extraordinary experiences. But they
typically cost more than the USD 50 or 100 cut-off frequently
imposed by the researchers. By comparing life-lasting extraordi-
nary experiential purchases with ordinary material purchases,
Gilovich and his co-authors have neglected the life experiences
that can accompany meaningful material possessions.
Confounding dimensions
While reviewing the empirical studies conducted over the last
decade, Gilovich et al. (2015) present different dimensions that
underlie the materialexperiential dichotomy and are responsible
for their differential effect on well-being (p. 4)such that
experiences are more likely to enhance social relations; they form
a bigger part of a person's identity; they evoke fewer
comparisons. Besides these psychological dimensions, there are
important consumer and marketing-related dimensions along
which material and experiential purchases may vary as well.
These dimensions may evoke similar psychological processes
and thus confound the empirical results.
For example, the material possessions frequently mentioned
by participants and studied in this research (clothing, laptops, and
televisions) are consumer goods whereas the experiences involve
services (restaurants, concerts, theme parks, and vacations).
Consumer and marketing researchers have identified tangibility
as one of the key differences between goods and services. Thus,
goods are tangible; services are intangible (Lovelock, 1983).
Moreover, goods are manufactured, standardized objects;
services, in comparison, extend over time, are more variable
and involve people (Lovelock, 1983; Lovelock & Gummesson,
2004). As a result, services are inherently more difficult to
compare, and because they include interactions with people, they
are naturally more tied to identity and socio-cultural associations
(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990;
Goodwin & Verhage, 1989; Grove & Fisk, 1997; Grove, Fisk, &
Laforge, 2004; Mittal & Lassar, 1996).
Moreover, in some of the framing manipulations,
self-construalinterdependent or independent (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991)rather than possession versus experiences
may have been primed. For example, respondents in one
experiential condition were asked to imagine the fun they
would have watching a new 3-D TV with friends (Gilovich et
al., 2015, p. 13). This manipulation implies an interdependent,
communal, and shared consumption (Chang & Chieng, 2006;
McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002) that satisfies the
hedonic goal of having fun, whereas in the material condition
they were to imagine an independent consumption, that is,
where a 3-D TV set would go in their apartments and what
their friends would think (Gilovich et al., 2015, p. 13). This
confound has been identified and has been the focus of a recent
study by Caprariello and Reis (2013) who show that the
inclusion of others is an important element for deriving
happiness from discretionary spending. When the social
solitary and experientialmaterial dimensions were considered
simultaneously, social discretionary spending was favored over
solitary discretionary spending; experiences as such, however,
showed no happiness-producing advantage relative to posses-
sions, and the solitary experiences were not valued more than
material possessions.
Possessions and experiences are not opposite ends of
a single continuum
Gilovich et al. (2015) seem to suggest that material
purchases and experiential purchases are at the opposite
ends of a single continuum. In-between these two extremes,
Gilovich and his colleagues place a so-called ambiguous
categorypurchases that are both undeniably a material good
and something that serves as a vehicle for experience
(Gilovich et al., 2015, p. 3). This categorywhether it is
located in-between the two ends or notis certainly of great
interest to consumer psychologists and experiential marketers
because a material good, either in and of itself, or as a brand,
may be the trigger for experiences. Gilovich and co-researchers
have not studied this category directly. At best, they would look
at a single (material) purchasea 3-D TV (Carter & Gilovich,
2010) or a dresser (Rosenzweig & Gilovich, 2012)and use
manipulations similar to those used by, for example, Dhar and
Wertenbroch (2000) to frame that object as material or as
experiential. Per their conceptualization of a continuum ranging
from material purchases to experiential purchases, the
ambiguous category should produce results falling in-between
the opposite ends. Recent empirical research suggests that this is
not the case. Experiential products produce the same positive
effects as experiences, and in fact even more positive effects
(Guevarra & Howell, in press). One possible explanation for this
effect is that experiential products and brands allow the consumer
to repeat experiences whereas one-time experiences can only be
retrieved from memory and relived, but not be experienced
directly again (Brakus et al., 2009; Guevarra & Howell, in press).
In sum, material purchases and experiential purchases are not two
ends of a spectrum; they do not form one continuum.
A conceptual model of the consumer experience
In the following, we present a conceptual model of the
consumer experience that addresses the shortcomings that we
identified in the research by Gilovich and his colleagues. Using a
consumer psychology perspective, we focus on experiences
which result from the purchase and consumption of commercially
branded products (goods and services) as part of a value
exchange between a buyer and seller. We exclude purely
psychological experiences (such as walking on the beach,
climbing a mountain, visiting a neighbor, or having a
 B. Schmitt et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 166171
conversation) because they usually do not have commercial
aspects and/or do not involve a value exchange.
Fig. 1 contrasts the psychological model resulting from research
by Gilovich and his co-authors with our own conceptual model of
the consumer experience. As shown in Fig. 1, rather than
contrasting material purchases versus experiential purchases,
we distinguish two value-creating purchase and consumption
dimensions: materialism and experientialism. Moreover, compared
to the psychological dimensions that Gilovich and his co-authors
have claimed to underlie the material versus experiential
dichotomy, we propose the construct of brand experience as a
key mediator between consumption and happiness. Finally, instead
of a one-dimensional happiness construct, we follow the positive
psychology literature that has shown that there are two distinct
happiness outcomes: pleasure and meaning (Ryan & Deci, 2001).
Materialism and experientialism
Instead of viewing material possessions and experiences at
two opposite ends of a continuum, we propose that any purchase
that results in consumption may be viewed and judged by the
consumer along two value-creating dimensions. The two
dimensions are (a) materialismthe value created for the
consumer based on the perceived material and monetary aspects
of the purchase and consumptionand (b) experientialismthe
Fig. 1. Contrasting views of materialism, experientialism, and happiness.
169
value created based on the perceived experiential aspects of the
purchase. In other words, consumer experiences have both
materialistic and experiential components. When buying and
consuming goods or services, and when remembering and
judging them, consumers can derive happiness and related
psychological value from both material and experiential compo-
nents. For a consumer good (say, a watch), focusing on the
material dimension, consumers may assess whether they received
a good deal, whether the watch has monetary value, tells the time
accurately, and can easily be resold or exchanged. Focusing on
the experiential dimension, consumers may assess the design and
its esthetics, whether the watch is a fine piece of craftsmanship; or
consumers may recall the special moment when the watch was
bought. The value may be low on both dimensions (e.g., it may
be just a typically priced watch that tells the time), or high on one
and low on the other (e.g., a watch that works well but does not
look good, and vice versa), or high on both (e.g., a watch of great
craftsmanship and esthetics with high resale value). Or consider a
service such as a vacation in Paris. On the material dimension,
consumers might judge the monetary value of the flight, the hotel,
and the restaurants, for example. On the experiential dimension,
consumers may take into account the view of the Eiffel Tower,
the museums, and the joie de vivre. In other words, it is not that
certain goods or services are inherently material (and thus
constitute material purchases), whereas others are inherently
170 B. Schmitt et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 166171
experiential (and thus constitute experiential purchases).
Rather, for consumers, it is about the mix of materialism and
experientialism, and how the two dimensions manifest them-
selves in a particular purchase and consumption situation. The
key objective of the researcher then should be to understand how
material and experiential values are created independently and
jointly, rather than pitching the two against each other.
In that respect, we expect that there will be individual,
contextual, category, and cultural differences. Some people are
more materialistic than others and derive well-being from material
possessions (Rindfleisch & Burroughs, 2004). Mortality salience
seems to be a context that primes materialistic tendencies (for a
review of empirical evidence, see Arndt, Solomon, Kasser, &
Sheldon, 2004; Rindfleisch & Burroughs, 2004). Luxury products
may afford more experiences than mass-market products (Atwal
& Williams, 2009; Berthon, Leyland, Parent, & Berthon, 2009).
Finally, certain culturessuch as Buddhist culture may be less
materialistic than Western cultures (Inglehart, 1997, 2000;
Inglehart & Welzel, 2005; Rindfleisch & Burroughs, 2004).
Brand experience
The construct of brand experience is another key
component in our conceptual model (see Fig. 1). Consumers
do not just buy products (goods and services); they buy brands.
And the brand experience can enhance or diminishin other
words, mediatethe relation between the materialism and
experientialism dimensions of products and outcomes such as
consumer happiness.
To be sure, brands have material aspects but they are also
marketing tools for creating consumer experiences (Holt,
2002). Consumers establish deep, meaningful relationships
with brands (Fournier, 1998); they become emotionally
attached to them (Thomson et al., 2005), and use them to
express their personality (Swaminathan, Stilley, & Ahuluwalia,
2009) and their social self (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). Once a
brand disappoints the consumer, the break-up of the consumer
brand relationship may resemble a relationship break-up or
divorce (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Grgoire, Tripp, &
Legoux, 2009; Johnson, Matear, & Thomson, 2011).
Brakus et al. (2009) have defined brand experiences as
subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feelings,
and cognitions) as well as behavioral responses that are evoked
by brand-related experiential attributes when consumers interact
with brands, shop for them and consume them (p. 53). Brand
experiences include a combination of sensing, feeling, thinking
(analytically as well as imaginatively), acting (i.e., interacting
with the environment through bodily actions), and, in a social
context, relating to others through the brand (e.g., sharing a
Coke or offering a box of Godiva chocolates; Brakus et al.,
2009; Fournier, 1998; McAlexander et al., 2002; Schmitt, 1999).
The strength of the brand experience influences consumers'
ability to draw inferences about the brand personality and
influences brand satisfaction and loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009).
We propose that brands can foster consumer well-being by
evoking specific types of experiences. In other words, brand
experiencessensory, affective, intellectual, bodily and social
experiencesmediate the relationship between the consumption
of goods or service brands and well-being.
Consumer happiness from pleasure and from meaning
Instead of viewing happiness and well-being as a unitary
potential outcome of consumption, we follow recent research in
positive psychology that distinguishes two paths to happiness,
each with distinct characteristics and processes: (a) a hedonic
path, where people experience happiness as pleasure (e.g., eating
a succulent Haagen-Dazs ice cream); and (b) a eudaimonic path,
where happiness arises from the fulfillment of meaningful goals
(e.g., conquering a mountain peak; Ryan & Deci, 2001).
Research by Gilovich and his co-authors assumes a unitary
concept of happiness and well-being that is implicitly biased
toward meaning-based happiness. In their work Gilovich and his
colleagues often contrast fleeting joy with more substantial
contributions to well-being, and instruct respondents to focus on
life experiences versus inexpensive objects that they obtain
and keep in possessions.
We believe that in consumer psychology it is useful to examine
the two types of happiness independently. We suspect that the
materialism dimension discussed earlier may be more predictive
of pleasure-based happiness, whereas the experientialism dimen-
sion may be more predictive of meaning-based happiness. These
effects are likely to be mediated by brand experiences. Consumers
may derive pleasure primarily from consumption that evokes
sensory, affective and bodily experiences; and derive meaning
primarily from intellectual and social experiences.
Conclusion: Bo had it right
Gilovich et al. (2015) prefaced their article with a quote by
actress Bo Derek, who had said, Whoever said money can't
buy happiness didn't know where to go shopping (p. 2). They
concluded by advising her and all of usto skip shopping
sprees, and head to the beaches instead. Our view paints a
different picture. A good life in a consumerist society is, as Bo
wisely realized, not about material versus experiential
purchases. It is about shopping and experiencing the beaches,
and, most importantly, feeling happy when wearing the right
brand of swimsuit.
References
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 116.
Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The urge to
splurge: A terror management account of materialism and consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 198212.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles:
The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88115.
Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketingThe experience is
everything! Journal of Brand Management, 16(5/6), 338346.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources
of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159170.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of
Marketing, 76(2), 116.
 B. Schmitt et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 25, 1 (2015) 166171
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265280.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15(2), 139168.
Berthon, P., Leyland, P., Parent, M., & Berthon, J. -P. (2009). Aesthetics and
ephemerality: Observing and preserving the luxury brand. California
Management Review, 52(1), 4566.
Bhattacharjee, A., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Happiness from ordinary and
extraordinary experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 117.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience:
What is it? How do we measure it? And does it affect loyalty? Journal of
Marketing, 73(3), 5268.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zhang, S. (2014). Experiential product attributes
and preferences for new products: The role of processing fluency. Journal
of Business Research, 67(11), 22912298.
Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2013). To do, to have, or to share? Valuing
experiences over material possessions depends on the involvement of
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 199215.
Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and
experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98(1), 146159.
Chang, P. -L., & Chieng, M. -H. (2006). Building consumerbrand relationship: A
cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology and Marketing, 23(11), 927959.
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. A., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in
services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of
Marketing, 54(3), 6881.
Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The
politics of interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and
utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 6071.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and
brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378389.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory
in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343373.
Gilovich, T., Kumar, A., & Jampol, L. (2015). A wonderful life: Experiential
consumption and the pursuit of happiness. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 25(1), 138151.
Goodwin, C., & Verhage, B. J. (1989). Role perceptions of services: A cross-
cultural comparison with behavioral implications. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 10(4), 543558.
Grgoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns
into lasting hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer
revenge and avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 1832.
Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1997). The impact of other customers on service
experiences: A critical incident examination of getting along.. Journal of
Retailing, 73(1), 6385.
Grove, S., Fisk, R., & Laforge, M. (2004). Developing the impression
management skills of the service worker: An application of Stanislavsky's
principles in a services context. The Service Industries Journal, 24(2), 114.
Guevarra, D. A., & Howell, R. T. (2014s). To have in order to do: Exploring the
effects of consuming experiential products on well-being. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.006.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging
concepts, methods and prepositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92101.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of
consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9(2), 132140.
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer
culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 7090.
Inglehart, R. F. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Cultural, economic,
and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
171
Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. The Washington
Quarterly, 23(1), 215228.
Inglehart, R. F., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and
democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson, A. R., Matear, M., & Thomson, M. (2011). A coal in the heart: Self-
relevance as a post-exit predictor of consumer anti-brand actions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 38(1), 108125.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand
knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595600.
Lovelock, C. H. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing
insights. Journal of Marketing, 47(3).
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing? In search
of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research,
7(1), 2041.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2),
224225.
Maslow, A. H. (1964). Religions, values, and peak-experiences. New York:
The Viking Press.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand
community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 3854.
Mittal, B., & Lassar, W. M. (1996). The role of personalization in service
encounters. Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 95109.
Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013). Attachmentaversion
(AA) model of customerbrand relationships. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 23(2), 229248.
Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in
decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144159.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theater
and every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for
materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303316.
Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2004). Terrifying thoughts, terrible
materialism? Contemplations on a terror management account of
materialism and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
14(3), 219242.
Rosenzweig, E., & Gilovich, T. (2012). Buyer's remorse or missed
opportunity? Differential regrets for material and experiential purchases.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 215223.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potential: Review
of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 141166.
Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel,
think, act, and relate to your company and brands. New York: Free Press.
Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2013). Consumer experience and
experiential marketing: A critical review. Review of Marketing Research,
10, 2561.
Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. M., & Ahuluwalia, R. (2009). When brand
personality matters: The moderating role of attachment styles. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35(6), 9851002.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind:
Measuring the strength of consumers' emotional attachments to brands.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 7791.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 11931202.
Zarantonello, L., Jedidi, K., & Schmitt, B. H. (2013). Functional and
experiential routes to persuasion: An analysis of advertising in emerging
vs. developed markets. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
30(1), 4656.