Re-examining the experiential advantage in consumption: a meta-analysis and review
META-ANALYSIS. 360 effect sizes from 141 studies. The experiential advantage holds at d = 0.383, 95 per cent CI [0.336, 0.430], but about a third of the effect may reflect publication bias. The advantage may owe more to relatedness than to happiness and willingness to pay, and is REDUCED for negative experiences, for solitary experiences, for lower-socioeconomic-status consumers, and when experiences provide a similar level of utilitarian benefit to material goods. The authors recommend larger samples than current practice. THE CORRECT CAVEAT FOR KUMAR ET AL. 2014: the broader experiential claim is real, smaller than advertised, a third possibly publication bias, a
META-ANALYSIS. 360 effect sizes from 141 studies. The experiential advantage holds at d = 0.383, 95 per cent CI [0.336, 0.430], but about a third of the effect may reflect publication bias. The advantage may owe more to relatedness than to happiness and willingness to pay, and is REDUCED for negative experiences, for solitary experiences, for lower-socioeconomic-status consumers, and when experiences provide a similar level of utilitarian benefit to material goods. The authors recommend larger samples than current practice. THE CORRECT CAVEAT FOR KUMAR ET AL. 2014: the broader experiential claim is real, smaller than advertised, a third possibly publication bias, a
Written from the abstract read 2026-10-18.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Weingarten, E., & Goodman, J. K. (2021). Re-examining the experiential advantage in consumption: a meta-analysis and review. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 855-877 (published online 16 September 2020). doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaa047.