Skills make you happy: Why high (vs. low) skill activities make consumers happier, yet they don't choose them

M. Alberhasky, Rajagopal Raghunathan
{"title":"Skills make you happy: Why high (vs. low) skill activities make consumers happier, yet they don't choose them","authors":"M. Alberhasky, Rajagopal Raghunathan","doi":"10.1002/mar.21886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"High‐skill activities—defined as those for which ability increases with practice over time—tend to contribute more to well‐being than do low‐skill ones. Nevertheless, consumers may spend the majority of their leisure time partaking in low‐skill activities (e.g., watching television, listening to music, web surfing)—despite correctly recognizing that higher‐skill activities, despite requiring more effort, are more happiness‐inducing. We explore this paradox in the present research. Results from five experiments (three online experiments and two lab experiments) confirm that consumers report being happier when spending time on high (vs. low) skill activities, and that the increased happiness from these high‐skill activities is mediated by increased “flow” from them. Expertise in an activity moderates this effect, such that those who are relative experts in a high‐skill activity experience increased happiness and meaning compared to those who are amateurs. We discuss how consumers can utilize this knowledge to improve their well‐being, and how marketers and employers can build on our findings to enhance customer and employee satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":188459,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

High‐skill activities—defined as those for which ability increases with practice over time—tend to contribute more to well‐being than do low‐skill ones. Nevertheless, consumers may spend the majority of their leisure time partaking in low‐skill activities (e.g., watching television, listening to music, web surfing)—despite correctly recognizing that higher‐skill activities, despite requiring more effort, are more happiness‐inducing. We explore this paradox in the present research. Results from five experiments (three online experiments and two lab experiments) confirm that consumers report being happier when spending time on high (vs. low) skill activities, and that the increased happiness from these high‐skill activities is mediated by increased “flow” from them. Expertise in an activity moderates this effect, such that those who are relative experts in a high‐skill activity experience increased happiness and meaning compared to those who are amateurs. We discuss how consumers can utilize this knowledge to improve their well‐being, and how marketers and employers can build on our findings to enhance customer and employee satisfaction.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
技能让你快乐:为什么高技能活动(相对于低技能活动)让消费者更快乐,但他们不会选择它们
高技能活动——定义为那些能力随着时间的推移而提高的活动——往往比低技能活动对幸福感的贡献更大。然而,消费者可能会把大部分闲暇时间花在低技能活动上(例如,看电视、听音乐、上网)——尽管他们正确地认识到高技能活动,尽管需要更多的努力,但更能带来快乐。我们在本研究中探讨了这一悖论。五个实验(三个在线实验和两个实验室实验)的结果证实,消费者报告说,当花时间在高技能活动(相对于低技能活动)上时,他们更快乐,而且这些高技能活动带来的幸福感增加是由这些活动增加的“流”所介导的。在某项活动中的专业知识缓和了这种影响,因此那些在高技能活动中相对专业的人比那些业余的人体验到更多的幸福感和意义。我们讨论了消费者如何利用这些知识来改善他们的福祉,以及营销人员和雇主如何基于我们的发现来提高客户和员工的满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The double‐edged sword of generative artificial intelligence in digitalization: An affordances and constraints perspective Social comparison theory: A review and future directions The double‐edged sword of generative artificial intelligence in digitalization: An affordances and constraints perspective Social comparison theory: A review and future directions Bayesian inference and consumer behavioral theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1