Introduction
The concept of experiential consumption arises from a consumer’s willingness to purchase goods or services for the experience of it. This purchasing behaviour focuses on the emotional aspects of consumption. Indeed, most literatures that have investigated experiential consumption view it as an experience that has identifiable and interpretive consequences (Jain 2018; Sovacool & Hess 2017; Hudders et al. 2014). These literatures are distinct from other consumer behaviour studies because they depend on psychological theories to explain purchasing processes. Particularly, psychological theories that assume a dichotomy in sensory perception come from this school of thought. This review explores the findings of other studies that have investigated experiential consumption as a core area of consumer behaviour.
Dichotomy of Purchasing Behaviours
As mentioned by Scanlon (2018), consumer purchasing behaviour could be intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. Extrinsic motivation views consumption as a “means to an end” because consumers buy goods and services to fulfil a specific goal (Sovacool & Hess 2017; Hudders et al. 2014). This type of consumer behaviour is addressed by literatures that have investigated the utilitarian theory of consumption (N’Goala, Pez-Perard & Prim-Allaz 2019). Alternatively, the concept of experiential consumption assumes a different view of the purchasing process by presenting consumer behaviours as an end unto itself.
Most literatures that have investigated the psychological processes of consumer behaviour suggest that fundamental differences exist between instrumental and experiential consumption (Zhao et al. 2017; Warde 2014). Instrumental consumption is linked with a logical view of consumer choices, subject to a realistic or voluntary examination of the merits and demerits of the goods or services bought (Jain 2018). Therefore, the decision-making process is goal-oriented. Comparatively, the experiential perception of consumer behaviour represents the freedom to accept what may become of the purchasing experience without a particular goal in mind.
The abovementioned view of consumption has been further interrogated by researchers, such as Schachtel, who believe that there are two modes of perception for consumer behaviour: secondary autocentricity and allocentricity (N’Goala, Pez-Perard & Prim-Allaz 2019).
Secondary autocentricity views consumption as a process informed by a consumer’s perception of the value of a product or service. In other words, purchases are made depending on the purpose of the goods bought. In this context of analysis, consumers engage in problem-solving or avoidance behaviours, depending on how they view the utility value of the product involved. In the second view of buying behaviour (allocentric consumption), the consumer is immersed in the purchasing process (Levit 2014). Furthermore, it is not mandatory for consumers to have a particular purpose for purchasing a good or service in mind.
Abraham Maslow, through the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, also examined consumer behaviours and identified two types of cognitive activities: b-cognition and cognition (N’Goala, Pez-Perard & Prim-Allaz 2019). B-cognition is linked with the concept of allocentric consumption because a customer experiences the process of purchasing a good or service by packaging it as one experience (Lanier & Rader 2015). Comparatively, cognition is associated with a more logical view of consumption because purchasing decisions are based on the process of comparing or evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of a product or service.
Consumer Research Findings
The above-mentioned views of consumer behaviour stem from consumer research findings developed in the 1970s and 1980s, which showed that purchasing behaviours were informed by cognitive and emotional reasoning (Chung et al. 2018). Consequently, most research studies that have investigated this subject matter recognise the distinction between instrumental and utilitarian consumption (Jain 2018; Sovacool & Hess 2017; Hudders et al. 2014).
More importantly, they recognise that experiential consumption stems from hedonic purchasing behaviours and it is motivated by pleasure-seeking behaviours among consumers. Additionally, most consumer research studies have presented hedonic consumption as a distinct area of research (Cluley & Desmond 2015; Jain 2018; Sovacool & Hess 2017; Hudders et al. 2014). For example, Cluley and Desmond (2015) outlined experiential consumption as an alternative to the traditional form of information-seeking purchasing behaviours. Consequently, a framework for evaluating this type of consumption through four key perspectives (value, cognition, emotions, and holistic intuition) has been developed (N’Goala, Pez-Perard & Prim-Allaz 2019).
The Thought-Emotion-Activity-Value (TEAV) Model emerged from the above-mentioned developments and it contains several attributes that explain consumer purchasing behaviour (N’Goala, Pez-Perard & Prim-Allaz 2019). Stated differently, it strives to explain multiple forms of consumption. The same reasoning has led to the development of the Cognition-Affect-Behaviour-Satisfaction (CABS) Model because the main tenets of the TEAV model are extrapolations of it (N’Goala, Pez-Perard & Prim-Allaz 2019).
The CABS model recognises that consumer purchasing behaviours are not only products of cognitive processes but also antecedents of people’s feelings, dreams and imaginations. For example, the human emotion is one of its key tenets which inform consumer purchasing behaviours (N’Goala, Pez-Perard & Prim-Allaz 2019).
Physiological processes and expressive behaviours are also by-products of the same reasoning. “Activity” is another tenet of the CABS model, which explores a customer’s willingness to take action by purchasing a product or service. Comparatively, “value” helps consumers to evaluate the merits and demerits of their purchasing choices. The TEAV model has morphed from this reasoning by presenting consumer purchasing processes as a product of complex cognitive systems and emotions. Consequently, those who have used the concept to understand consumer behaviours recognise interdependencies among its constructs (Sovacool & Hess 2017; Hudders et al. 2014). Conversely, the nonlinearity of consumer behaviour is achieved.
The emergence of “experience” as a key consideration in understanding consumer behaviour stems from the views of some researchers, such as Lanier and Rader (2015), who view it as a model for understanding post-industrial societies. Overall, although researchers have used existing theories of consumer behaviour to understand purchasing patterns, the theories are limited by their inability to recognise the complexity of consumer behaviour through experiential consumption. This is because current works of literature have helped to explain broader structures of consumption. Additionally, they have expanded people’s understanding of the functions of purchasing experiences on consumer choices.
Summary
Based on a comprehensive review of the literature on consumer behaviour highlighted in this paper, consumption is presented as a two-pronged process that has contrasting, but not opposing ideas, of consumption. The first type of reasoning presents the consumer as instrumentally-oriented, while the second one assumes a hedonic approach to their reasoning. Instrumentally-oriented behaviours advocate for a rational understanding of purchasing processes, while hedonic orientation assumes a complex approach to the same activity. In other words, it recognises the nonlinearity of consumer purchases.
This latter approach to consumer behaviour explains experiential consumption because purchases are made for enjoyment. Collectively, the evidence gathered in this document shows that consumers are motivated by both cognitive processes and hedonic reasoning. Therefore, experiential consumption could be deemed a product of hedonic reasoning, or a combination of this type of reasoning and cognitive behaviours.
Reference List
Chung, E, Farrelly, F, Beverland, MB & Karpen, IO 2018, ‘Loyalty or liability: resolving the consumer fanaticism paradox’, Marketing Theory, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3-30.
Cluley, R & Desmond, J 2015, ‘Why psychoanalysis now?’, Marketing Theory, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3-8.
Hudders, L, De Backer, C, Fisher, M & Vyncke, P 2014, ‘The rival wears Prada: luxury consumption as a female competition strategy’, Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1-10.
Jain, V 2018, ‘Luxury: not for consumption but developing extended digital self’, Journal of Human Values, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25-38.
Lanier, CD & Rader, CS 2015, ‘Consumption experience: an expanded view’, Marketing Theory, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 487-508.
Levit, LZ 2014, ‘Person-oriented conception of happiness and some personality theories: comparative analysis’, SAGE Open, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 1-10.
N’Goala, G, Pez-Perard, V & Prim-Allaz, I 2019, Augmented customer strategy: CRM in the digital age, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Scanlon, PJ 2018, ‘The effects of embedding closed-ended cognitive probes in a web survey on survey response’, Field Methods, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 328-343.
Sovacool, BK & Hess, DJ 2017, ‘Ordering theories: typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 703-750.
Warde, A 2014, ‘After taste: culture, consumption and theories of practice’, Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 279-303.
Zhao, T, Jin, X, Xu, W, Zuo, X & Cui, H 2017, ‘Mating goals moderate power’s effect on conspicuous consumption among women’, Evolutionary Psychology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1-10.