People who show off luxury vacations are viewed as warmer than those who show off luxury goods

New research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that individuals who flaunt expensive experiences, such as luxury vacations or exclusive concert tickets, reap distinct social benefits compared to those who show off material possessions. While both types of conspicuous consumption effectively signal that a person has high status and wealth, displaying experiences also leads observers to perceive the spender as warmer and more relatable.

Humans have a long history of displaying resources to establish social standing. In the modern era, this behavior is known as conspicuous consumption. Psychologists and economists have dedicated significant effort to understanding how the display of expensive material objects, such as designer handbags or high-end automobiles, communicates status.

The general consensus from past literature indicates that while these items effectively signal wealth, they often come at an interpersonal cost. Individuals who flash material goods are frequently viewed as less warm, less friendly, and more manipulative.

Despite this well-established understanding of material displays, less is known about the social consequences of showing off experiences. The market for experiential spending is growing rapidly, with a global value estimated in the trillions. Social media platforms are saturated with images of travelers enjoying scenic views or foodies dining at exclusive restaurants.

“Discussions about conspicuous consumption in the academic literature have often been restricted to material goods like designer jewelry and expensive cars,” said study author Wilson Merrell, a postdoctoral researcher at Aarhus University and guest researcher at the University of Oslo.

“But with the proliferation of social media it has become easier than ever to conspicuously consume other kinds of purchases like all-inclusive vacation and visits to Michelin-starred restaurants — time-constrained experiences that someone personally lives through. Given a rich literature on the psychological benefits of material vs. experiential consumption more broadly, we wanted to better understand how these different kinds of purchases communicated status and other traits to perceivers.”

The researchers conducted a series of four experiments. The first study involved 421 adult participants recruited online. The research team designed a controlled experiment to isolate the effects of the purchase type from the product itself. They presented all participants with the same product: a high-end Bose home theater sound system.

For half of the participants, the system was described using a material framing. This description highlighted physical properties and the quality of the components. The other half read a description that used an experiential framing. This text emphasized the immersive listening experience and the feelings the product produced. After reading the descriptions, participants evaluated the hypothetical owner of the sound system on various personality traits.

The results offered a clear distinction between status and warmth. Framing the purchase as an experience did not change perceptions of status. Both the material and experiential owners were seen as equally wealthy and upper-class. However, the owner of the experientially framed system was rated as warmer and more communal. This finding suggests that simply shifting the focus of a purchase from ownership to usage can mitigate the negative social judgments usually associated with showing off wealth.

The second study aimed to replicate these results using real-world stimuli and more practical outcomes. The researchers scraped images from Instagram using hashtags related to luxury travel and luxury goods. A new group of 120 participants viewed these posts and evaluated the person who posted them. Instead of just rating traits, the participants judged how suitable the posters would be for specific occupations.

The researchers selected jobs that were stereotypically high-status but low-warmth, such as a corporate lawyer or businessperson. They also selected jobs that were high-warmth, such as a social worker or childcare provider.

The data revealed that people who posted conspicuous experiences were viewed as qualified for both types of roles. They appeared competent enough for the high-status jobs and kind enough for the communal jobs. In contrast, those who posted material goods were seen as suitable for the high-status roles but poor fits for the communal ones. This supports the idea that experiential displays provide a broader social advantage, allowing the consumer to signal status without sacrificing their image as a likable person.

A third experiment investigated the psychological mechanism behind this difference. The authors hypothesized that observers assume experiential buyers are motivated by genuine internal interest rather than a desire to impress others.

To test this, they recruited 475 participants to view social media profiles featuring either material or experiential purchases. The profiles included text explaining why the person made the purchase. The text indicated either an intrinsic motivation, such as personal enjoyment, or an extrinsic motivation, such as wanting to be admired by peers.

When no reason was given, the pattern from previous studies held true. Observers naturally assumed the experiential buyers were more intrinsically motivated. However, when an experiential buyer explicitly admitted to purchasing a trip just to impress others, the warmth advantage disappeared.

In fact, the ratings reversed. An experiential consumer who was motivated by external validation was seen as less warm than a material consumer motivated by genuine passion. This suggests that the social benefit of experiences relies heavily on the assumption that the person is spending money for the sake of the memory, not the applause.

The final study examined the role of social context in these perceptions. Experiences are often shared with others, whereas material goods are frequently used alone. The researchers recruited 334 undergraduate students to read about a target who spent money on conspicuous experiences.

The researchers manipulated two factors: whether the purchase was motivated by enjoyment or prestige, and whether the experience was solitary or social. Participants rated the target’s warmth and indicated if they would want to be friends with them. They also played a game to measure how generous they thought the target would be.

The results provided a nuanced picture of the phenomenon. The communal advantage was only present when the experience was both intrinsically motivated and consumed socially. A person who went on a luxury trip alone was not viewed as warmly as someone who went with friends, even if they claimed to love travel.

This indicates that the presence of others is a necessary component of the positive signal sent by experiential spending. When consumption is solitary, it fails to trigger the associations of warmth and connection that usually accompany experiences.

“There are many avenues through which to signal status,” Merrell told PsyPost. “Expensive material goods communicate high levels of status and low levels of warmth, while expensive experiential purchases can communicate both high status and relatively high warmth—a ‘best of both worlds’ strategy. In our work, this difference is largely driven by whether the purchases were made for intrinsic reasons (passion pursuits close to one’s identity) or extrinsic reasons (just to show off to others), and whether the purchases involve others (social) or not (solitary).”

While the study provides strong evidence for the social benefits of experiential spending, there are limitations to the generalizability of the findings. The samples were drawn entirely from the United States, meaning the results reflect specific Western cultural norms regarding wealth and display. It is possible that in cultures with different values regarding community or modesty, these effects would not appear or might present differently.

Additionally, the ease of displaying experiences depends heavily on technology. The transient nature of a meal or a trip means it requires active documentation to be conspicuous, unlike a watch that is always visible.

The researchers also note that signaling warmth is not always the primary goal for every individual. “One reading of our paper is that luxury experiences are ‘better’ signals than luxury materials goods,” Merrell explained. “However, there are very reasonable situations where someone may want to signal high levels of status and lower levels of warmth.”

“For instance, in the case of a dominant political leader. In this case, a luxury material good may be a more appropriate signal than a luxury experience. So it’s not that one type of consumption is better than the other, but that we should consider how different types of consumption are perceived when we seek status signaling goals.”

In future work, the researchers plan to better understand how these consumption types relate to different forms of social rank, distinguishing between status gained through dominance versus status gained through prestige.

“Prominent theories of status striving advocate for two main paths to achieve social rank: dominance (associated with inflicting costs and punishments to others) and prestige (associated with garnering respect and being well-regarded by others),” Merrell said. “In an on-going project I examine whether conspicuous material vs. experiential consumption is associated with these distinct status pursuits. Early results suggest that experiential conspicuous consumption is more associated with prestige, while material conspicuous consumption is more associated with dominance.”

The study, “Flaunting Porsches or Paris? Comparing the Social Signaling Value of Experiential and Material Conspicuous Consumption,” was authored by Wilson N. Merrell and Joshua M. Ackerman.