A common cultural assumption suggests that sadness drives consumerism. This concept, frequently referred to as “retail therapy,” posits that people shop to alleviate negative feelings. Headlines in major publications, such as The Wall Street Journal, have even asked, “How Do You Keep The Public Shopping? Just Make People Sad.” This perspective implies a specific economic behavior: sadness opens wallets, while happiness might keep them closed.
However, the scientific reality of how emotion influences spending is not so black and white. While the idea of shopping to repair a bad mood is popular, older academic work paints a different picture. In 1996, researchers Babin and Darden published a study suggesting that happy people actually spent more money than their unhappy counterparts.
Evan Polman, a researcher at the Wisconsin School of Business at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, sought to investigate this contradiction. His recent study, published in the journal Marketing Letters, revisits the question of how positive emotion influences financial behavior. Polman designed a field experiment to see if the link between happiness and spending observed thirty years ago holds true today.
Revisiting a Decades-Old Question
The primary motivation for this research was to address conflicting narratives in consumer psychology. On one side, the theory of mood repair suggests that sad individuals buy things to change their circumstances. They acquire goods to replace negative feelings with the dopamine hit of a new purchase. This view has been supported by various experiments showing that sad participants are willing to pay more for specific items, like water bottles or highlighters.
On the other side stands the 1996 findings by Babin and Darden. Their work indicated that positive moods correlated with higher spending in mall shoppers. They found a twelve percent increase in spending for every single-point increase on a happiness scale. This suggests that happiness, rather than functioning as a state of contentment that stops consumption, might act as a fuel for it.
Polman identified a need to reconcile these opposing viewpoints. He noted that previous studies often used different methods. Some were lab-based and hypothetical, while others were in the field. Some focused on mood (a temporary state), while others looked at disposition (a general personality trait). To provide clarity, Polman aimed to replicate the conditions of the 1996 field study but with modern controls and a new group of participants.
Designing the Field Experiment
To test these theories in a real-world setting, Polman recruited 350 undergraduate students from a university in the United States. The methodology moved away from hypothetical scenarios and focused on actual purchasing behavior. The study began with a survey designed to establish a baseline for each participant.
The first step involved measuring dispositional happiness. Participants answered questions regarding their general state of well-being, rating themselves on a scale from “not happy” to “very happy.” This established a trait-level happiness score for each individual before any shopping took place.
Following the initial survey, the researchers provided the participants with financial resources. 339 of the original recruits picked up an envelope containing $10. The instructions were open-ended. The researchers told the students to buy whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted. They were also informed that they could spend more or less than the ten dollars provided.
This approach differed slightly from the 1996 study. The original researchers had interviewed shoppers who were already in a mall using their own money. Polman’s method allowed for a broader range of shopping environments. It also introduced a time gap between the measurement of happiness and the act of spending. This separation helped ensure that the questions about happiness did not immediately influence the shopping decisions.
Analyzing the Spending Habits
One week after distributing the cash, the researchers sent a follow-up survey. 307 participants responded, detailing what they had purchased and the exact amount they had spent. The data collection focused on the total dollar amount and the specific nature of the items bought.
The researchers analyzed the relationship between the initial happiness scores and the reported spending. The average amount spent was roughly $9.80, though amounts ranged from zero to $90. Some participants spent only the provided funds, while others supplemented the cash with their own money.
The statistical analysis revealed a positive trend. Participants who reported higher levels of general happiness spent more money than those with lower happiness scores. This effect remained consistent even when the researchers removed outliers, such as individuals who spent significantly more than the average. The analysis showed that the connection identified by Babin and Darden thirty years ago remained statistically significant.
The Role of Product Type
Polman did not stop at simply measuring the total amount spent. He investigated whether the type of product purchased played a role in the relationship between emotion and spending. This step was intended to bridge the gap between the “happy shopper” findings and the “sad shopper” theories found in other literature.
The researcher hypothesized that the specific nature of a purchase—whether it was practical or indulgent—might explain why different studies produced different results. To test this, research assistants coded every purchased item. They rated products on a scale from utilitarian (practical necessities) to indulgent (pleasurable wants).
The coding process assigned a number from one to seven for each item. A high score indicated an indulgent product, while a low score indicated a utilitarian one. The researcher then looked for a link between happiness, spending, and the product rating.
A Tale of Two Shoppers
The breakdown of the data provided a nuanced explanation for the conflicting theories. The analysis showed that the relationship between happiness and spending depended entirely on what the person was buying.
When participants purchased indulgent items, happiness predicted higher spending. These items included things closer to the “want” end of the spectrum. In this context, a positive mood appeared to act as a green light for treating oneself. The data suggested that happier people might feel less “pain of paying” or have greater cognitive flexibility to justify discretionary purchases.
Conversely, the data revealed a different pattern for utilitarian goods. When the products were rated as practical necessities, the link flipped. In these cases, lower happiness scores (or higher sadness) were associated with higher spending. This aligns with previous research on sadness, which often involved participants buying practical items like office supplies.
This discovery offers a way to integrate the two opposing views. It suggests that happiness does not simply increase spending across the board. Instead, happiness drives spending on things that provide pleasure or experience. Sadness, by contrast, may drive spending on items that solve immediate, practical problems.
Implications for Business and Strategy
These findings offer specific insights for businesses regarding customer segmentation. The data suggests that a consumer’s emotional state correlates with their interest in specific product categories. Companies selling luxury goods, entertainment, or other indulgent experiences may find that their products appeal more to individuals in a positive state of mind.
Marketing strategies often rely on identifying the “pain points” or anxieties of a customer to sell a solution. However, this study indicates that such a strategy might be counterproductive for non-essential goods. Promotions that rely on fear or negativity might not trigger the spending behavior desired for discretionary items. Instead, fostering a positive emotional connection could be more effective for driving sales of indulgent products.
The study also corrects a potential misconception derived from popular media. As Polman noted, many people believe that because sadness increases spending, happiness must decrease it. The results contradict this zero-sum thinking. Spending occurs in both emotional states, but the motivation and the target of that spending differ significantly.
Understanding the Limitations
While the study offers a clearer view of the happiness-spending link, there are limitations to consider. The participants were exclusively university undergraduate students. This demographic has specific spending habits and financial constraints that may not perfectly reflect the general population.
Additionally, the study is correlational. This means the research identified a link between happiness and spending but cannot definitively prove that happiness caused the spending. It is possible that other factors, such as personal wealth, could influence both happiness and the ability to spend money. A wealthier person might be generally happier and also have more disposable income.
Finally, the study relied on self-reported data. Participants had to recall and report their spending a week after the fact. While this method allows for naturalistic behavior, it relies on the accuracy of the participants’ memories and honesty.
![[Adobe Stock]](https://www.psychologyofselling.pro/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/stressed-businessman-350x250.jpg)
