Subjective Well-Being of Different Consumer Lifestyle Segments

Ganglmair‐Wooliscroft, Alexandra; Lawson, Rob

doi:10.1177/0276146710393251

Cited by 29 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(68 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, several concepts that deal more with the attitudinal side of wealth have been shown to relate to well‐being. Ganglmair‐Wooliscroft and Lawson () found a definite and strong relationship between lifestyle and subjective well‐being. Those lifestyles associated with higher incomes tended to have higher subjective well‐being but other factors such as the way the lifestyle segments approach money and wealth also affected subjective well‐being.…”

Section: Money's Limited Effect On Subjective Well‐beingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Attitude toward Consumption and Subjective Well‐Being

Iyer¹,

Muncy²

2015

Journal of Consumer Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study looked at the effects of attitude toward consumption (positive or negative) on subjective well‐being. This research studied attitude toward consumption at both the personal (micro) level and societal (macro) level and subjective well‐being in terms of cognitive well‐being and affective well‐being. Results indicated that micro attitudes, whether positive or negative, were positively related to a consumer's subjective well‐being. In contrast, macro attitudes were negatively related to subjective well‐being. We posit that these findings could be due to micro attitudes enhancing the person's feeling of autonomy and control. In contrast, macro attitudes may create concerns beyond the person's control. For those who wish to impact societal‐level consumption, these findings provide empirical support for the idea that focusing on the personal benefits of anticonsumption may be more effective than emphasizing larger societal concerns. We explore the potential implications of these findings for mandated vs. voluntary approaches to reducing consumption.

show abstract

Section: Money's Limited Effect On Subjective Well‐beingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Attitude toward Consumption and Subjective Well‐Being

Iyer¹,

Muncy²

2015

Journal of Consumer Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, we should recognize that consumer well-being may mean different things to different people. Another consumer study in New Zealand (Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Lawson 2011) provided us with yet another grouping of consumer based on their lifestyle: pragmatic strugglers, educated liberals, success-driven extroverts, pleasure seekers, traditional values people, social strivers, and conservative quiet lifers. Moreover, consumer well-being may be manifestly different across product categories.…”

Section: Room For Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macromarketing Metrics of Consumer Well-Being: An Update

Sirgy

2020

Journal of Macromarketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary updates much of the research related to the various constructs and metrics of consumer well-being. Specifically, I review the research to date concerning several conceptualizations and metrics of consumer well-being from both public and academic sectors. Public sector metrics include Cost of Living, Total Consumption Expenditure, Consumer Complaint, and Quality. Selected contributions to consumer well-being metrics from the academic sector include Shopping Satisfaction, Shopping Well-Being, Possession Satisfaction, Acquisition/Possession Satisfaction, Consumption Life Cycle, Community, Need Satisfaction, Perceived Value in Life, and Bottom-up Spillover. I then provide some thoughts about how these metrics can be improved and ideas that may spur future research. In doing so, I address issues related to construct validity to public sector metrics by demonstrating association with human development measures. Metrics from the academic sector can also be improved by testing association with newly established constructs of well-being (e.g., eudaimonia, social well-being) and introducing moderating effects of individual differences (e.g., consumer involvement, consumer lifestyle) as well as product-related differences (e.g., experiential versus material consumption; marketplace activities related to luxury versus nonluxury goods and services; and products beneficial to society versus “sin” products).

show abstract

“…Consumer lifestyles are understood as distinct ways of living for different groups within a given society (Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Lawson 2010; Plummer 1974). These distinctions are assumed to be anchored in the individual's value priorities – more than class or economic resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%