Introduction
Defining the Aspects of Hedonic Consumption
Consumer demands and preferences cannot be defined solely on the basis of their utilitarian and pragmatic aspects. In fact, the attractiveness of the product largely depends on the high level of pleasure and ease that it brings to users. Pleasure-oriented, or hedonic, pattern of consumption have come to the forth as far as the individual predilections and choices are concerned. Consequently, full reliance on traditional attitude to the product revealed through the level of productivity and usefulness is insufficient to determine the veritable intentions of the buyers. More importantly, the difference between hedonic perspectives and utilitarian approaches to creating goods should be outlined to define the veritable usefulness and validity of the pleasure-oriented aspect consumer behavior.
The presented analysis reveals that examination of consumers’ needs and demands is more consistent and exhaustive if hedonic constructs of a product are concerned. Specific reference should be made to such differentiating components as symbolic meaning and hedonic acceptance of the product in contrast to its utilitarian use, behavioral pattern of consumption, and, finally, attitudinal and environment inputs defining the product demand. It is also very useful to highlight that the scope of this perspective is not restricted to attitudes only, but to many other elements of consumer behavior, notably cognitive and behavioral responses including consumer and environmental input variables. Apparently, because experiential perspective has featured in the marketing materials as short articles, the whole picture remains loose with vaguely defined concepts.
Main Body
Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Consumption
Defining Hedonic Perspectives with Regard to Utilitarian Ends of Products
Aside from usefulness of the product, much attention should be paid to the symbolism of a product. The interest in the presented aspects is primarily explained by the desire to find the congruence between consumer choices and symbolic meaning of presented goods and services. Hirschman and Hoolbrook (1) explain this phenomenon with tangible reliance on the concept of hedonic consumption. Specifically, the researchers believe that hedonic consumption “…designates those facets of consumer behavior that relate to the multi-sensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of one’s experience with products”. (1) They further explain in detail their meaning by singling out and defining some keywords including multi-sensory, fantasy, and emotive ones. Multi-sensory here refers to the experience of various sensory modalities that include sight, taste, sounds, scent and tactile impressions. Fantasy imagery is the photographic memory that reflects past experiences including but not limited to colors and shapes. Emotive aspects are emotional arousal that generate feelings such as joy, jealousy, fear rage, or rapture.
Aside from symbolical explanations of the product with regard consumer demands, hedonic consumption is closely associated with the idea of pleasure-oriented and self-fullfilling characteristics of the products increasing the product demand. (2) These features are juxtaposed to traditional, productivitiy-oriented aspects of production focusing on the level of task performance. While comparing the main featres of productivity-oriented and pleasure oriented features of information systems, Van Der Heijden have revealed that “…the value of a hedonic system a function of the degree to which the user experiences fun when using the system”. (2) Judging from the above, consumers attain much importantce to such characteristics as sound, color, design, aesthetics, and visual layouts encouraging ease and enjoyment levels of systems. Indeed, hedonic nature of goods and services play a pivotal role in defining customers’ demands.
The unreliability of personality measures in prediction of consumer behavior has led to adoption of life style variables in favor of personality measures. The predominant information processing view details most of buyer behaviors. Hedonic research has not focused on this significant portion of the consumer experience, but instead broadened the understanding of leisure activities, symbolic meaning, variety seeking, hedonic responses, and a host of other terms. This should not substitute information processing approach, but supplement it.
Symbolic Meanings as Subjective Characteristics of Products
Hedonic consumption as an active usage experience leads to certain propositions. First, “there appears to be a preferred or most desirable pattern of emotional arousal for products experienced over a specific time frame”. (3) Emotional and subjective attitudes, therefore, are largely defined by symbolic representation of the product. This of specific concern to consumers’ perceptions and feelings arising from the built associations. According to Hollbrook and Hirichman (3), the symbolic role of products is especially tangible when entertaiment, leisure activities, and art are involved. The presented field creates a firtile ground for research because it makes a significant shift to experimental patterns of consumer behavior. Deviation from the accepted norms of production perception is definitely advantageous because it creates a solid platform for promoting high level of involvement of the target markets.
The initial definition of involvement stressed the inclination to link one’s stimulus, as well as denotative excluding elements such as attention, interest, enjoyment or excitement. This initial definition has “influenced proponents of information processing who define involvement in terms of personal relevance of cognitive responses”. (3) In search activities, the advocates of information processing view apply certain strategies in the study of information acquisition. Those who favor laboratory methods have developed skillful proficiency in studying acquisition of cues. Survey researchers have in the meantime, investigated qualities at the multi-cultural level of those who gather information. In this regard, hedonic perspective of search activity embraces experimental and connotative perspectives of perceiving a product.
Defining the factors influencing consumer behavior
Patterns of Hedonic Consumption
Before defining the actual definition and value of hedonic consumption phenomenon, it is purposeful to outline the patterns identifying consumer preference. On the basis of the research conducted by Kahnx et al (4), it should be stressed that the level of enjoyment is largely defined by modes of perceiving a specific product, especially when a product belongs to an aesthetic category. Greater pleasure, thus, can be achieved by means of melioration and maximization. The former “…occurs when an individual overconsumes the favorite until its enjoyment level is decreased to that of an initially inferior option”. (4) The phenomenon also predicts the extent to which global maximization is deviated. In contrast, maximization reflects consumer’s decision to refrain from choosing the favorite product in order to preserve the highest level of pleasure and enjoyment at the end.
With regard to the patterns of melioration and maximization, consumer behavior is premised on the process of seeking variety. This tendency lies in stitching away from the consumed product on the last occurrence. The point is that many consumers either tend to choose an item that has been selected recently or find an alternative among familiar products. In this respect, Kahnx et al (4) provides a number of explanations to the phenomenon of seeking-variety behavior. First, they provide psychological evidence revealing the fact that consumption level exceeds the established norm. As soon as consumers experience satiation, they decide to choose a different motivation, or incentive, to consume. Another assumption uncovers that variety-seeking behaviors stem from “a cognitive need for stimulation”. (4) Finally, there is also a judgment that most of people refer to a seeking-variety behavior to meet all requirements of an ideal product.
Attitudinal components of consumer behavior (3rd)
Researchers who regard “attitude” to be distinct from cognitions and conations assert that it can be evaluated by a process that locates the subject on a bipolar affective. (1) As a result, attitudes are viewed as none-dimensional, applicable to any subject or object. In addition, attitude researchers in psychology view “attitude” as equal to feeling than preference.
The concept of hedonic consumption can be better highlighted with reliance on contrastive patterns of consumer behavior. This is of particular concern to utilitarian aspects promoting a narrow-focused, simplistic approach to measuring and analyzing consumer demands. At this point, Athola (5) presents traditional perspectives of analyzing the product competitiveness in the light of the current researches dedicated to the importance of considering pleasure-oriented attitudes toward a product. The latter reveals the necessity to introduce new methods and tools aimed at studying the consumption of esthetic products where traditional attitude measures are not relevant. Measuring the values of product with regard to expectancy and multi-attribute issues can be carried out only through the introduction of the category of emotional response.
According to the researcher, the traditional attitude models do not accurately reflect the actual underpinnings and reasons for selecting a specific product because it focuses only on one aspect of response. (5) In fact, the drawn parallels between attitude and feeling lead to an assumption that consumer choice is more than preference. More importantly, the consideration of personal norms and images is also imperative in building an alternative model of consumer behavior.
The strategic orientation of many traditional marketing researches exhibit a naïve approach to descriptive profile in which consumers express certain habits such as usage rate, or brand loyalty. This market division appear in most audience profile studies conducted by both traditional and hedonic researchers. Nevertheless, hedonic research applies a complementary predilection in which subcultural segments are defined a priori-before they are contrasted on the basis of hedonic responses. (1) In regard to this perspective, some important propositions follow. First, differences in imaginal and emptional response are strongly associated with a wide range of subcultural discrepancies. (1) Second, these subcultural factors differe in the light of emotionals and fantacies encourages by consumders. Finally, cubcultural and marginal groupsp reflect a mixed perceptions concerning which products fit the category of hedonic consumption.
In respect to the above-presented conclusions, Holbrook and Hirschman deduce propositions regarding product classes. To begin with, they believe that product classes should involve emotional response along with traditional examined features in the course of a consumer research. (1) Additionally, the product consumption generates substantial mental activities leading to partonage decisions with regard to hedonical perspectives. (5) Finally, hedonic consumption is primarily based on symbolic elements of the products rather than on their tangible features.
In general, experiential perspective incorporating information processing could be beneficial for a consumer research. As a result, there has been a common criticism of traditional attitude. (1) These attitude measures are dependant upon simplistic and narrow-focused formulations. A major area of criticism has revealed that symbolic, hedonic, and esthetic perspectives of consumptions are not sufficiently represented in these formulations.
Re-conceptualizing the outlook on consumer behavior
Many consumer researches focus on utilitarian benefit of products and services than the experiental view which explores the symbolic significance of more immanent characteristics such as elegance and sociability. In addition, traditional consumer research prototypes concentrate on product’s verbal description. There are many products that possess significant nonverbal aspects that need to be seen, tasted, and felt in order to be appreciated. There is little reasearch focussing on the nonverbal multi-sensory aspect. Hedonic perspective advocates for a active inquiry of the connection between consumer behavior and their multi-sensory psychophysical. Focusing attention to nonverbal sensory signs require a unique mode of experimental stimulus objects presentation (1). Experiential or hedonic research should emulate consumer like experiences based on realistic product samples. What is more important, the measurement tools evaluating hedonic dimensions should consider such aspects as mental construct and classification of products, individual differences, and product usage.
Conclusion
Summing up, the presented discussion focuses on the importance of considering the concept of hedonic consumption. The phenomenon should be taken into account because the traditional outlook on product analysis is insufficient to define consumer demands and preferences. Pleasure-oriented approaches should be specifically applicable to the products related to aesthetic and artistic dimensions of the market, including music, art, and photography. However, other tangible goods should not be ignored either because their choice is also premised on symbolic associations and hedonic dimensions. In general, the above-presented approaches have shed the light on the importance of widening the approach to measuring consumder demands.
References
Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB. Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. The Journal of Marketing. 1982; 46(3): 92-101.
Van der Heijden, H. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly. 28(4): 695-704.
Holbrook MB, Hirschman EC. The Experiental Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies Feelings and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research. 1982; 9(2): 132-140.
Kahnx, BA, Ratner, RK, Kahneman, D. Patterns of Hedonic Consumptions over time. Marketing Letters. 1997; 8(1): 85-96.
Athola, OT. Hedonoc and utilitarian aspects of consumer behavior: an attitudinal perspective. Advances in Consumer Research. 1985; 12: 7-10.