Posts Tagged ‘Hedonic’

The strength, impact and value of a brand are embodied, fairly concisely, in the concept of ‘brand equity’. However, there are different views on how to express and measure brand equity, whether from a consumer (customer) perspective or a firm perspective. Metrics based on a consumer viewpoint (measured in surveys) raise particular concern as to what actual effects they have in the marketplace. Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde (2017) have answered to the challenge and investigated how well Consumer-Based metrics of Brand Equity (CBBE) align with Sales-Based estimates of Brand Equity (SBBE). The CBBE metrics were adopted from the model of Brand Asset Valuator (Y&R) whereas SBBE estimates were derived from modelling market data of actual purchases. They also examined the association of CBBE with behavioural response to marketing mix actions [1].

In essence, brand equity expresses an incremental value of a product (or service) that can be attributed to its brand name above and beyond physical (or functional) attributes. Alternately,  brand equity is conceived as the added value of a branded product compared with an identical version of that product if it were unbranded. David Aaker defined four main groups of assets linked to a brand that add to its value: awareness, perceived quality, loyalty, and associations beyond perceived quality. On the grounds of this conceptualization, Aaker subsequently proposed the Brand Equity Ten measures, grouped into five categories: brand loyalty, awareness, perceived quality / leadership, association / differentiation, and market behaviour. Kevin Keller broadened the scope of brand equity wherein greater and more positive knowledge of customers (consumers) about a brand would lead them to respond more favourably to marketing activities of the brand (e.g., pricing, advertising).

The impact of a brand may occur at three levels: customer market, product market and financial market. In accordance, academics have followed three distinct perspectives for measuring brand equity: (a) customer-based — an attraction of consumers to the “non-objective” part of the product offering (e.g., ‘mindset’  as in beliefs and attitudes, brand-specific ‘intercept’ in a choice model); (b) company-based — additional value accrued to the firm from a product because of a brand name versus an equivalent product but non-branded (e.g., discounted cash flow); financial-based — brand’s worth is the price it brings or could bring in the financial market (e.g., materialised via mergers and acquisitions, stock prices)[2]. This classification is not universal:  for example, discounted cash flows are sometimes described as ‘financial’; estimates of brand value derived from a choice-based conjoint model constitute a more implicit reflection of the consumers’ viewpoint. Furthermore, models based on stated-choice (conjoint) or purchase (market share) data may vary greatly in the effects they include whether in interaction with each competing brand or independent from the brand ‘main effect’ (e.g., product attributes, price, other marketing mix variables).

A class of attitudinal (‘mindset’) models of brand equity may encompass a number of aspects and layers: awareness –> perceptions and attitudes about product attributes and functional benefits (+ overall perceived quality), ‘soft’ image associations (e.g., emotions, personality, social benefits) –> attachment or affinity –> loyalty (commitment). Two noteworthy academic studies have built upon the conceptualizations of Aaker and Keller in constructing and testing consumer-based measures:

  • Yoo and Donthu (2001) constructed a three-dimension model of brand equity comprising brand loyalty, brand awareness / associations (combined), and perceived quality (strength of associations was adopted from Keller’s descriptors of brand image). The multidimensional scale (MBE) was tested and validated across multiple product categories and cultural communities [3].
  • Netemeyer and colleagues (2004) demonstrated across products and brands that perceived quality, perceived value (for the cost), and uniqueness of a given brand potentially contribute to willingness to pay a price premium for the brand which in turn acts as a direct antecedent of brand purchase behaviour [4]. Price premium, an aspect of brand loyalty, is a common metric used for assessing brand equity.

Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde distinguish between two measurement approaches: the consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) approach measures what consumers think and feel about the brand, while the sales-based brand equity (SBBE) approach is based on choice or share of the brand in the marketplace.

The CBBE approach in their research is applied through data on metrics from the Brand Asset Valuator model developed originally by Young and Roubicam (Y&R) advertising agency (the brand research activity is now defined as a separate entity, BAV Group; both Y&R and BAV Group are part of WPP media group). The BAV model includes four dimensions: Relevance to the consumers (e.g., fits in their lifestyles); Esteem of the brand (i.e., how much consumers like the brand and hold it in high regard); Knowledge of the brand (i.e., consumers are aware of and understand what the brand stands for); and  Differentiation from the competition (e.g., uniqueness of the brand)[5].

The SBBE approach is operationalised through modelling of purchase data (weekly scanner data from IRI). The researchers derive estimates of brand value in a market share attraction model (with over 400 brands from 25 categories, though just 290 brands for which BAV data could be obtained were included in subsequent CBBE-SBBE analyses) over a span of ten years (2002-2011). Notably, brand-specific intercepts were estimated for each year; an annual level is sufficient and realistic to account for the pace of change in brand equity over time. The model allowed for variation between brands in the sensitivity to their marketing mix actions (regular prices, promotional prices, advertising spending, distribution {on-shelf availability} and promotional display in stores) — these measures are not taken as part of SBBE values but indicate nonetheless expected manifestation of higher brand equity (impact); after being converted into elasticities, they play a key role in examining the relation of CBBE to behavioural outcomes in the marketplace.

  • Datta et al. seem to include in a SBBE approach estimates derived from (a) actual brand choices and sales data as well as (b) self-reported choices in conjoint studies and surveys. But subjective responses and behavioural responses are not quite equivalent bases. The authors may have aimed reasonably to distinguish ‘choice-based’ measures of brand equity from ‘attitudinal’ measures, but it still does not justify to mix between brands and products consumers say they would choose and those they actually choose to purchase. Conjoint-based estimates are more closely consumer-based.
  • Take for instance a research by Ferjani, Jedidi and Jagpal (2009) who offer a different angle on levels of valuation of brand equity. They derived brand values through a choice-based conjoint model (Hierarchical Bayes estimation at the individual level), regarded as consumer-level valuation. Vis-à-vis the researchers constructed a measure of brand equity from a firm perspective based on expected profits (rather than discounted cash flows), presented as firm-level valuation. Nonetheless, in order to estimate sales volume they ‘imported’ predicted market shares from the conjoint study, thus linking the two levels [6].


Not all dimensions of BAV (CBBE) are the same in relation to SBBE: Three of the dimensions of BAV — relevance, esteem, and knowledge — are positively correlated with SBBE (0.35, 0.39, & 0.53), while differentiation is negatively although weakly correlated with SBBE (-0.14). The researchers reasoned in advance that differentiation could have a more nuanced and versatile market effect (a hypothesis confirmed) because differentiation could mean the brand is attractive to only some segments and not others, or that uniqueness may appeal to only some of the consumers (e.g., more open to novelty and distinction).

Datta et al. show that correlations of relevance (0.55) and esteem (0.56) with market shares of the brands are even higher, and the correlation of differentiation with market shares is less negative (-0.08), than their correlations with SBBE (correlations of knowledge are about the same). The SBBE values capture a portion of brand attraction to consumers. Market shares on the other hand factor in additional marketing efforts that dimensions of BAV seem to account for.

Some interesting brand cases can be detected in a mapping of brands in two categories (for 2011): beer and laundry detergents. For example, among beers, Corona is positioned on SBBE much higher than expected given its overall BAV score, which places the brand among those better valued on a consumer basis (only one brand is considerably higher — Budweiser). However, with respect to market share the position of Corona is much less flattering and quite as expected relative to its consumer-based BAV score, even a little lower. This could suggest that too much power is credited to the name and other symbols of Corona, while the backing from marketing efforts to support and sustain it is lacking (i.e., the market share of Corona is vulnerable).  As another example, in the category of laundry detergents, Tide (P&G) is truly at the top on both BAV (CBBE) and market share. Yet, the position of Tide on SBBE relative to BAV score is not exceptional or impressive, being lower than predicted for its consumer-based brand equity. The success of the brand and consumer appreciation for it may not be adequately attributed specifically to the brand in the marketplace but apparently more to other marketing activities in its name (i.e., marketing efforts do not help to enhance the brand).

The degree of correlation between CBBE and SBBE may be moderated by characteristics of product category. Following the salient difference cited above between dimensions of BAV in relation to SBBE, the researchers identify two separate factors of BAV: relevant stature (relevance + esteem + knowledge) and (energized) differentiation [7].

In more concentrated product categories (i.e., the four largest brands by market share hold a greater total share of the category), the positive effect of brand stature on SBBE is reduced. Relevance, esteem and knowledge may serve as particularly useful cues by consumers in fragmented markets, where it is more necessary for them to sort and screen among many smaller brands, thus to simplify the choice decision process. When concentration is greater, reliance on such cues is less required. On the other hand, when the category is more concentrated, controlled by a few big brands, it should be easier for consumers to compare between them and find aspects on which each brand is unique or superior. Indeed, Datta and colleagues find that in categories with increased concentration, differentiation has a stronger positive effect on SBBE.

For products characterised by greater social or symbolic value (e.g., more visible to others when used, shared with others), higher brand stature contributes to higher SBBE in the market. The researchers could not confirm, however, that differentiation manifests in higher SBBE for products of higher social value. The advantage of using brands better recognized and respected by others appears to be primarily associated with facets such as relevance and esteem of the brand.

Brand experience with hedonic products (e.g., leisure, entertainment, treats) builds on enjoyment, pleasure and additional positive emotions the brand succeeds in evoking in consumers. Sensory attributes of the product (look, sound, scent, taste, touch) and holistic image are vital in creating a desirable experience. Contrary to expectation of Datta and colleagues, however, it was not found that stature translates to higher SBBE for brands of hedonic products (even to the contrary). This is not so good news for experiential brands in these categories that rely on enhancing relevance and appeal to consumers, who also understand the brands and connect with them, to create sales-based brand equity in the marketplace. The authors suggest in their article that being personally enjoyable (inward-looking) may overshadow the importance of broad appeal and status (outward-looking) for SBBE. Nevertheless, fortunately enough, differentiation does matter for highlighting benefits of the experience of hedonic products, contributing to a raised sales-based brand equity (SBBE).

Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde proceeded to examine how strongly CBBE corresponds with behavioural responses in the marketplace (elasticities) as manifestation of the anticipated impact of brand equity.

Results indicated that when relevant stature of a brand is higher consumers respond favourably even more strongly to price discounts or deals  (i.e.,  elasticity of response to promotional prices is further more negative or inverse). Yet, the expectation that consumers would be less sensitive (adverse) to increased regular prices by brands of greater stature was not substantiated (i.e., expected positive effect: less negative elasticity). (Differentiation was not found to have a positive effect on response to regular prices either, and could be counter-conducive for price promotions.)

An important implication of brand equity should be that consumers are more willing to pay higher regular prices for a brand of higher stature (i.e., a larger price premium) relative to competing brands, and more forgiving when such a brand sees it necessary to update and raise its regular price. The brand may benefit from being more personally relevant to the consumer, better understood and more highly appreciated. A brand more clearly differentiated from competitors with respect to its advantages could also benefit from a protected status. All these properties are presumed to enhance attachment to a brand, and subsequently lead to greater loyalty, making consumers more ready to stick with the brand even as it becomes more expensive. This research disproves such expectations. Better responsiveness to price promotions can help to increase sales and revenue, but it testifies to the heightened level of competition in many categories (e.g., FMCG or packaged goods) and propensity of consumers to be more opportunistic rather than to the strength of the brands. This result, actually a warning signal, cannot be brushed away easily.

  • Towards the end of the article, the researchers suggest as explanation that they ignored possible differences in response to increases and decreases in regular prices (i.e., asymmetric elasticity). Even so, increases in regular prices by stronger brands are more likely to happen than price decreases, and the latter already are more realistically accounted for in response to promotional prices.

Relevant stature is positively related to responsiveness to feature or promotional display (i.e., consumers are more inclined to purchase from a higher stature brand when in an advantaged display). Consumers also are more strongly receptive to larger volume of advertising by brands of higher stature and better differentiation in their eyes (this analysis could not refer to actual advertising messages and hence perhaps the weaker positive effects). Another interesting finding indicates that sensitivity to degree of distribution (on-shelf availability) is inversely associated with stature — the higher the brand stature from consumer viewpoint, larger distribution is less attractive to the consumers. As the researchers suggest, consumers are more willing to look harder and farther (e.g., in other stores) for those brands regarded more important for them to have. So here is a positive evidence for the impact of stronger brands or higher brand equity.

The research gives rise to some methodological questions on measurement of brand equity that remain open for further deliberation:

  1. Should the measure of brand equity in choice models rely only on a brand-specific intercept (expressing intrinsic assets or value of the brand) or should it include also a reflection of the impact of brand equity as in response to marketing mix activities?
  2. Are attitudinal measures of brand equity (CBBE) too gross and not sensitive enough to capture the incremental value added by the brand or is the measure of brand equity based only on a brand-intercept term in a model of actual purchase data too specific and narrow?  (unless it accounts for some of the impact of brand equity)
  3. How should measures of brand equity based on stated-choice (conjoint) data and actual purchase data be classified with respect to a consumer perspective? (both pertain really to consumers: either their cognition or overt behaviour).

Datta, Ailawadi and van Heerde throw light in their extensive research on the relation of consumer-based equity (CBBE) to behavioural outcomes, manifested in brand equity based on actual purchases (SBBE) and in effects on response to marketing mix actions as an impact of brand equity. Attention should be awarded to positive implications of this research for practice but nonetheless also to the warning alerts it may signal.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)


[1] How Well Does Consumer-Based Brand Equity Align with Sales-Based Brand Equity and Marketing-Mix Response?; Hannes Datta, Kusum L. Ailawadi, & Harald J. van Heerde, 2017; Journal of Marketing, 81 (May), pp. 1-20. (DOI: 10.1509/jm.15.0340)

[2] Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities; Kevin L. Keller and Donald R. Lehmann, 2006; Marketing Science, 25 (6), pp. 740-759. (DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1050.0153)

[3] Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale; Boonghee Yoo and Naveen Donthu, 2001; Journal of Business Research, 52, pp. 1-14.

[4]  Developing and Validating Measures of Facets of Customer-Based Brand Equity; Richard G. Netemeyer, Balaji Krishnan, Chris Pullig, Guangping Wang,  Mahmet Yageci, Dwane Dean, Joe Ricks, & Ferdinand Wirth, 2004; Journal of Business Research, 57, pp. 209-224.

[5] The authors name this dimension ‘energised differentiation’ in reference to an article in which researchers Mizik and Jacobson identified a fifth pillar of energy, and suggest that differentiation and energy have since been merged. However, this change is not mentioned or revealed on the website of BAV Group.

[6] A Conjoint Approach for Consumer- and Firm-Level Brand Valuation; Madiha Ferjani, Kamel Jedidi, & Sharan Jagpal, 2009; Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (December), pp. 846-862.

[7] These two factors (principal components) extracted by Datta et al. are different from two higher dimensions defined by BAV Group (stature = esteem and knowledge, strength = relevance and differentiation). However, the distinction made by the researchers as corroborated by their data is more meaningful  and relevant in the context of this study.



Read Full Post »

Our sweet delight for the day is the macaron. In basic terms, a macaron is made of two rounded meringue-based biscuits that hold between them, like a sandwich, a creamy filling. Macarons may come in various flavours (e.g., lemon, coffee, strawberry, caramel-fleur-de-sel) and appear each in a colour associated with its flavour. But from here on, the whole difference lies between a good-quality Macarons by Ladureemacaron and a mediocre one: How brittle are the top and bottom biscuits, finished with sugar glazing on surface and crispy edges? How soft and tasty is the filling in match with the biscuits? And how well does the whole composition melt in your mouth? A fine colourful arrangement of macarons on display in-store can be a visual celebration to our eyes; and the choice of flavours for making them is an excellent ground for creativity and ingenuity.

Macarons were developed in the form we know them today in the 1950s and 1960s. However, they have become so popular and ubiquitous in just the past five to ten years. The macarons are French in origin; according to some differing narratives they have gone through a few forms since the 18th century and until reaching the one most familiar now. The traditional fillings were ganache, buttercream or fruit jam, but the range of flavours currently available is much broader.

Much of the credit for the rise in demand for macarons in recent years, so it appears, belongs to the French patisserie and confectionary maker Ladurée whilst being under the ownership and leadership of the Holder family since 1993. Louis-Ernest Ladurée originally founded his tea room and patisserie in Paris of the late 19th century; the founding Ladurée family developed its successful recipe of macarons sometime before or around the mid-2oth century. Their single venue was located on rue RoyaleLaduree flagship shop and cafe, Champs Elysees, Paris near Place de la Concorde. The acquiring Holder family relocated its flagship venue in 1997 to the Champs Elysées and established under one roof a shop, a café next to it, and a restaurant (on its second floor). Moreover, the new owner has been investing with dedication in elevating the Ladurée brand. Their international expansion started in 2005 with London and have since spread to cities in Europe (e.g., Milano, Dublin, Zürich), the United States (New-York), Middle East (e.g., Beirut, Doha), Asia (e.g., Seoul, Hong-Kong, Shanghai) and Australia (e.g., Sydney), covering nearly 30 countries aside from France. They have, furthermore, a strong presence on the Internet in a fine brand-designed group of websites with vending functionalities.

It would do unjust, however, to suggest that good macarons in Paris come only from Ladurée. Fine and tasty macarons may be easily found in numerous venues across the city, particularly at chocolatiers and patisseries (e.g., Pierre Hermé, Fauchon, Maison du Chocolat). Some are better known confectionary and pastry makers, others may be less specialised vendors, so one has to try a few macarons to find out which he or she likes best. The increase in popularity, nevertheless, has motivated bakeries and confectionary makers in other countries to produce locally their own macarons, and there indeed consumers should take greater care to find truly good-quality macarons. There is also a bundle of recipe suggestions for macarons on the Internet.

  • Macarons have become particularly trendy in the United States. It is said that Americans welcome them as a replacement for cupcakes that went out of favour. But then the question is: Are macarons adopted in the US just as a hip that will fade away after a couple of years or are they there to stay. Macarons are most likely to stay popular in their home country, France, and probably also in some of the European countries, depending on how deeply such treats are rooted in those countries’ culinary cultures.

What probably makes Ladurée different, except for the high-quality of its macarons, pastries and other treats, is the carefully built strength or equity of its brand. It is created and maintained around the prestigious decorated flagship venue, the selection of its physical locations, and its websites. People stand in line outside its main shop to buy their macarons. Alternately, connoisseurs may sit in its café on Champs Elysées, enjoy some of their delicious pastries, and order a take-away pack of macarons, chosen from a special menu card, to be carefully packaged and brought to the table. They have a boutique shop-in-shop at Printemps upscale department store. Ladurée also collaborated in the past few years with well-known fashion designers to enhance its prestige image, especially during fashion week fairs (e.g., in New-York and Milano).

There is yet a variant form of macarons, famous of its own merit, known as Luxemburgerli by the Swiss chocolate specialist and patisserie Sprüngli. Their recipe was brought-in in the late 1950s from a confectionary maker originated, as the name suggests, in Luxemburg, who collaborated with Confiserie Sprüngli. The Luxemburgli is somewhat taller than the classic macaron with more filling — it feels like a richer combination of biscuit and cream. Like many of Sprüngli’s chocolate and bakery treats, their Luxemburgerli is an artisan delight. It would be interesting to find out how Ladurée succeeds against Swiss veteran makers of chocolate confections or pastries like Sprüngli, Teuscher or Läderach.

Consumers often do not feel comfortable to indulge themselves with products or services that are discretionary, and furthermore a luxury, whether it is specialty chocolate pralinés, a dinner at a top-class or luxury restaurant, or a holiday on a cruise ship. People want to feel they deserve it beforehand. In some cases, when heavier spending is required on a luxury, consumers appear to have a greater difficulty permitting themselves to enjoy an expensive luxury than resisting such temptation; they may need to precommit themselves to make the indulgence (e.g., going on a cruise for vacation versus replacing an old dishwasher)(1). The contemplation over smaller indulgences, like a sweet treat, is less demanding, yet people want to feel somehow entitled, so as not to suffer guilt and regret after the act.

Consumers may consider spoiling themselves in different circumstances. The occasion may simply arise when people are on vacation, indulging on premium chocolate or macarons as a way of enhancing their enjoyment, making the best of the holiday. But for many consumers such an occasion may not account for a reason concrete or good enough to indulge. (Celebrating a public holiday or a birthday make a notable exception.) Consumers are likely to expect indulgences to be more appropriate as a reward for an achievement or good performance (e.g., completing a tough assignment, a high-grade in an exam). Conversely, it may be justified as a consolation for bad or disappointing performance (e.g., failing an entry exam, losing a client). There is also an expectation of consumers that an indulgent experience will be more enjoyable when it comes as a reward than as a consolation. However, all this effort of justification may be an outcome of misconception and insufficient learning by the consumers. Xu and Schwarz show that consumers indeed have such expectations, that may drive their decisions, but they are inconsistent with what they reportedly feel during the experience episode or shortly after it. Differences in emotions expressed in their predictions (expectations) were not reflected in their episodic memories. (2)

  • More elaborately, the evidence indicated that consumers feel similarly positive (e.g., enjoyable) about an indulgent experience, and incur similarly negative feelings (e.g., guilt), whether they have had a “legitimate” reason or not, and whether it occurred as a reward or as a consolation. Furthermore, as consumers get more distant in time from affective episodes they report on, such reports are more in accordance with their predictions than with their episodic memories. The prior expectations and the late reconstructed reports of consumers similarly draw or rely on global beliefs and general knowledge, unlike reports of episodic memories when consumers have “lively” access to specific memories of attributes of the product or event they indulged on and their evoked feelings. Nonetheless, people are not very good at reconciling their beliefs, predictions and experiences and hence their learning is impaired.

Consequently, for indulgences that are not really luxurious, rather discretionary, consumers seemingly worry too much about being “justified” or “deserving”to indulge, and what would be their feelings thereafter, as these concerns do not coincide with how they really feel while indulging; hence they may be encouraged just to enjoy the indulgence (e.g., macarons) as it happens.

Consumers may rightfully wish to relish their hedonic experiences later in time, beyond the momentary pleasure, but it may turn out to be more effortful. When they are engaged with the product of indulgence, their attention is focused on its attributes and how they enjoy them (e.g., texture, taste and appearance of the macarons). But as time passes after the hedonic experience, its details fade in memory and so the benefits may also be lost. (Hedonic experiences may have to be more profound, with stronger emotions, than having chocolate truffles or macarons, to have a more lasting effect on happiness.)

The smaller types of indulgence usually do not have significant financial consequences as a barrier, but they could have other negative consequences like damaging health implications — in the case of chocolate or macarons, it could be related to high sugar levels. A consumer considering this kind of indulgence may be stopped by concern for his or her health and seek a reason to justify this “irresponsible” behaviour.

Feeling sadness due to a previous event can especially attenuate such a concern before committing the indulgence, and thereof avoid it. However, not in all cases of sadness it should impede indulgence. If one’s goal is explicitly to indulge for the sake of it (e.g., having a festivity on a generous steak or a pack of chocolate truffles), sadness is more likely to highlight to the consumer the potential damages; in desire to prevent further losses to one’s well-being, the consumer is more likely to cancel the intended indulgence. If on the other hand the consumer had no such hedonic eating goal at the time he or she became sad, the indulgence is likely to be applied as a tool for moderating emotions. Specifically, it allows indulgence (e.g., eating macarons) as a consolation, helping to make one feeling better, less sad (3).

Facilitating or even encouraging consumers to indulge, as in buying and eating macarons, could mean making them feel more comfortable, reduce pressure from them that could make them feel in conflict — by using messages like “enjoy the moment”, “do it just for fun”, “carpe diem”, and “it is OK to indulge even without a reason”. Yet there are additional factors that can give an advantage to a particular brand. A strong brand of fame, as demonstrated by Ladurée, has the power to cause consumers to perceive that its macarons taste even better than they may objectively be judged (notwithstanding that Ladurée’s macarons are of high-quality, nice looking and tasty). There are social effects to account for, as when people stand in-line in front of a shop, visible to others who may join them. Furthermore, an artistically impressive display of colourful macarons, in-store or better in the front window, can create the visual inducement necessary to persuade consumers to accept the temptation.

Actually, having chosen the right macarons, you will not regret it.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)


1. Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence; Ran Kivetz and Itamar Simonson, 2002; Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (Sept.), pp. 199-217.

2. Do we Really Need a Reason to Indulge?; Jing Xu and Norbert Schwarz, 2009; Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (Feb.), pp. 25-36.

3. Hedonic Eating Goals and Emotion: When Sadness Decreases the Desire to Indulge; Anthony Salerno, Juliano Laran, & Chris Janiszewski, 2014; Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (June), pp. 135-151

Further reading on pleasure and hedonic consumption:

Pleasure Principles: A Review of Research on Hedonic Consumption; Joseph W. Alba and Elanor F. Williams, 2012; Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (1), pp. 2-18 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.07.003).

Read Full Post »