Expanding the experiential advantage model: exploring the mediating roles of a sense of meaning and moderating effects of motivational autonomy

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to test the experiential advantage argument from both the hedonic and eudaimonic well-being perspectives and seeks to explore the mediating roles of a sense of meaning, as well as the moderating effects of consumers’ motivational autonomy, in a novel context – China. Design/methodology/approach Study 1 (n= 203) used a between-subject experiment where participants role-played an imaginary purchase with experiential versus material focus; Study 2 (n= 290) used a recall method where participants were asked to recall their past experiential purchase or material purchase that cost more than RMB500 (about US$70); Study 3 (n= 185) used a between-subject experiment where participants were assigned to one of the four scenarios (two types of purchases (experiential vs material) × 2 levels of motivational autonomy (high vs low). Findings The authors find that the experiential advantage argument holds true for eudaimonic well-being as well as hedonic well-being in three studies with Chinese consumers. In addition, the authors find that a sense of meaning serves as an additional mediator for the experiential advantage argument. Further, the authors find that the level of motivational autonomy positively moderates the effect size of experiential advantages and the mediating roles of a sense of meaning. Research limitations/implications The authors only address the two ends of the experiential–material purchase continuum. Whether the discovered mediation roles of a sense of meaning and the moderation roles of motivational autonomy hold for hybrid experiential products remain unknown. Originality/value The authors enriched the experiential advantage literature through exploring the mediation roles of a sense of meaning and the moderating effects of motivational autonomy in the experiential advantage model.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.