As a large body of research documents, consumers’ evaluations of new products are not purely utilitarian but dependent on the emotions and involvement elicited by the offer (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Kempf, 1999; Allen et al., 2005; Hassenzahl, 2018). Emotional responses constitute predictable and impactful drivers of decision making with regularities in the mechanisms through which they influence product evaluation (Lerner et al., 2015; Bettiga and Lamberti, 2017). Research on product adoption and consumption mainly argues that such emotional responses are processed differently by individuals according to the mainly hedonic or utilitarian/functional nature of the product they are evaluating (Hoch and Ha, 1986; Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Kempf and Smith, 1998; Ren and Nickerson, 2019; Yang et al., 2020). Hedonic products refer to objects consumed mostly for affective or sensory fulfillment aim, while utilitarian products are connected to more functional and practical benefits (Woods, 1960; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998; Huber et al., 2018). Although this distinction is less than unequivocal (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982), there appears to be a consensus that a main utilitarian product affects differently cognition and emotions than a hedonic product (Kempf, 1999). Hedonic products have been argued as being more affect-rich than those consumed for utilitarian purposes (Pham, 1998; Malhotra, 2005; Baghi and Antonetti, 2017). Research affirms that they generate greater arousal (Kempf, 1999), pleasure, and engagement (Kivetz and Simonson, 2002; Zheng and Kivetz, 2009; O’Brien and O’Brien, 2010) than utilitarian ones.

Given that, academicians and marketers have proposed different communication approaches for the two product typologies, assuming that emotional communication would be more effective for a hedonic offer (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; Rossiter et al., 1991; Batra and Stephens, 1994). However, recent research sheds doubts on the inherent difference in the emotions generated by hedonic versus utilitarian products, showing that hedonic offer generates greater emotions only for some customer segments (Drolet et al., 2007) or for specific interaction modes (Liao et al., 2016). Other studies found that emotional responses (e.g., Henning et al., 2012) and consumer responses (Vila-López and Küster-Boluda, 2018) do not differ for hedonic and functional product evaluation.

We propose that such discrepancy may derive from the nature of the emotions assessed, which is strictly dependent on their empirical measurement. Research typically measures emotions through self-reported techniques, such as surveys (e.g., Henning et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2016). Self-reported techniques, however, have shown significant limitations when it comes to assessing human reactions to stimuli and purchase patterns (Groeppel-Klein and Baun, 2001; Ait Hammou et al., 2013). Consumers, indeed, are typically unable to describe their emotional processes, given the subconscious mechanisms of which individuals are not aware of and thus cannot report (Berridge and Winkielman, 2003; Ivonin et al., 2013). These methods can only catch what consumers report, so the conscious emotions that the consumer can recognize and describe. However, self-reported methods cannot measure the unconscious feelings and emotions the individual experiences but is not able to account. For these reasons, several researchers highlight the need to measure physiological unconscious emotions that go beyond the subjective felt ones (Oatley, 1992; Bagozzi et al., 1999; Chamberlain and Broderick, 2007).

This research attempts to address such concern by assessing both the physiological (unconscious) and the self-reported (conscious) emotional reactions generated by hedonic and utilitarian products, given the importance of emotions in product adoption and consumption (Chaudhuri et al., 2010). We examine the influence of the product nature (functional and hedonic) on a consumer’s affective reactions of pleasure, arousal, and involvement through both physiological techniques (electroencephalography, heart rate, breath rate, and skin conductance) and self-reported instruments. With this study, we aim at providing theoretical and empirical evidence on the conscious and unconscious emotional responses generated by hedonic and utilitarian products. Further, we provide implications of the use of physiological techniques in the assessment of a consumer’s experience with new products.

Research conventionally makes a distinction between hedonic and utilitarian products (Kempf, 1999; Kim and Morris, 2007; Lin et al., 2018a; Amatulli et al., 2020). Hedonic products are consumed mostly for affective or sensory fulfillment aim, while functional products for utilitarian goals (Woods, 1960; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998; Kivetz and Simonson, 2002; de Witt Huberts et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2016). Hedonic goods are associated with fun, pleasure, and excitement (Khan et al., 2004). Typical examples of such products are perfumes, flowers, luxury watches, and sports cars. Utilitarian goods are primarily instrumental, and consumption is driven by functional aspects, such as for detergents, home security systems, or personal computers (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998; Wertenbroch and Dhar, 2000).

Hedonic and utilitarian products have been associated with different consumer reactions and behaviors (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Batra and Ahtola, 1991). Research has quite consistently argued that feelings are weighed more heavily under hedonic than utilitarian consumption goals (Pham, 1998; Malhotra, 2005). Products consumed for hedonic purposes have been acknowledged as more affect-rich and evoking feeling-based evaluations (Pham, 1998; Kempf, 1999; Malhotra, 2005). Research argued that hedonic product experiences lead to stronger emotional responses of arousal (Kempf, 1999; Fiore et al., 2005), pleasure, and engagement (Kivetz and Simonson, 2002; Zheng and Kivetz, 2009; O’Brien and O’Brien, 2010) than utilitarian ones. As a result, researchers and practitioners suggested different communication strategies according to the nature of the product marketed, assuming that affective communication evokes more positive consumer responses for a hedonic offer (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; Rossiter et al., 1991; Batra and Stephens, 1994). Emotional and value-related communication has been claimed as more relevant for such products (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; Rossiter et al., 1991), and ad liking seems connected to ad recall for hedonic but not for utilitarian objects (Youn et al., 2001). Overall, research moved toward the conclusion that the use of emotional appeal is desirable for hedonic products, while for utilitarian ones, it is not advised (Rossiter et al., 1991; Youn et al., 2001).

However, recent studies shed doubts on the inherent difference in the emotions generated by hedonic versus utilitarian products. Drolet et al. (2007) found that young adults have more positive attitudes toward and better recall of affective ads for hedonic products than utilitarian ones (for which rational ads work better), but the elderly have better recall and more positive attitude toward affective ads irrespective of the nature of the product advertised. Liao et al. (2016) proved that hedonic products, presented through an online interface, generate higher pleasure than utilitarian products but only in specific interaction conditions. They detected no differences, however, in the arousal dimension. Similarly, Sharma and Chan (2017) found mixed evidence on the moderating effect of product nature on counterfeit product purchase behaviors. Henning et al. (2012) and Bettiga and Lamberti (2018) established that emotions are relevant to both hedonic and functional product evaluations.

Such inconsistency in results may be generated by the empirical assessment of the emotions themselves, typically measured through self-reported techniques, by asking consumers to report the feelings they experienced. When interacting with hedonic products, indeed, consumers may devote higher attention to the emotional outcome of the consumption episode and emotions elicited by such interaction (Neelamegham and Jain, 1999). For certain products, such as movies, the emotional outcome may itself be the objective (Neelamegham and Jain, 1999). As emotions are perceived to be more important for hedonic consumption motives, consumers may pay more attention to their emotional reactions for hedonic products (Pham, 1998). Even when emotional responses are elicited similarly in both hedonic and utilitarian consumption, consumers are more likely to infer that their emotional responses have been elicited by the product itself (and not by other contextual elements) only for hedonic consumption (Henning et al., 2012). Thus, it is plausible that unconscious emotions are translated in consciously experienced emotions for hedonic products only, where there is an identification of the eliciting cause. Hence, we argue that the attribution of emotions mainly to hedonic products in mainstream research (e.g., Kempf, 1999) may be due to the conscious recognition and reporting of such emotions by consumers and not by the magnitude of real emotions experienced. For utilitarian products, conversely, consumers may not translate unconscious emotions in conscious, thus reportable, feelings, regardless of the real emotions experienced.

Grounding on this discussion, we expect that both functional and hedonic products generate emotions. However, such emotions may not be consciously recognized in utilitarian consumption scenarios, thus generating a misalignment between unconscious emotions and conscious emotions. Conversely, we expect that the unconscious emotions elicited by a hedonic product may be recognized at the conscious level. In other words, we posit that consumers do experience and are able to report emotions for hedonic products. Hence, we expect an alignment between physiological unconscious emotions and self-reported, thus conscious, ones. On the contrary, for functional products, consumers do experience emotions but are not able to report them; hence, we expect a misalignment between physiological and self-reported emotions. More formally, we propose:

Our results suggest that the ability to generate emotions and feelings in the consumer is not the distinguishing mark between the two product typologies. The discriminant seems, however, to lie in the connotation associated a priori to the offer. In our study, consumers, indeed, declared that the two products have either a functional nature or a hedonic nature. We can infer that such awareness induces to report arousal and engagement only for the products perceived to be hedonic. This is in line with recent studies, affirming that when interacting with hedonic products, consumers may devote greater attention to the emotions elicited by such interaction (Pham, 1998; Neelamegham and Jain, 1999) and are more likely to infer that their emotional responses have been provoked by the product itself (Henning et al., 2012). Hence, the same distinction between hedonic and functional products may not lie in their inherent nature but in the rationalization of their consumption. A product may be classified as functional when individuals recognize its utilitarian value but not the emotional one. Similarly, a product may be perceived as hedonic because the individual recognizes its entertainment and emotional value in the absence of perceived utilitarian value. Consumers may justify their consumption of hedonic products by embedding them with emotional values and of functional products by recognizing in them prominent utilitarian values. Such findings would confirm what has been proposed by Addis and Holbrook (2001) regarding hedonic objects: “subjectivity might be more than just a filter, but an actualizing creative force that molds the object (via a perception of it) so as to shape the resulting consumption experience (including variable emotional reactions) in ways that defy rational analysis”(Addis and Holbrook, 2001, p. 60). If the subjectivity of the consumer evaluation is the distinguishing mark, the same ambiguity in the classification of some products as either functional or hedonic would be solved. Indeed, such discriminant does not lie in the product itself but in its interpretation by the individual. For instance, coffee may be perceived as functional if the individual consumes it because of stimulation. But it can be perceived as hedonic if the consumption is driven by the sensory enjoyment of coffee aroma. In the first case, post-consumption, the consumer will be more prone to recognize the energizing boost of the coffee, while in the second case its sensory attributes.

This research aims at providing theoretical and empirical evidence on the conscious and unconscious emotional responses generated by hedonic and utilitarian products. We examine the influence of the product nature (functional and hedonic) on a consumer’s affective reactions of pleasure, arousal, and involvement through both physiological techniques (electroencephalography, heart rate, breath rate, and skin conductance) and self-reported instruments.

Findings show that functional and hedonic products both generate emotional responses in consumers, confirming H1a, H1b, and H1c. Neither the self-reported measures of arousal, pleasure, and involvement nor the physiological ones were showing any difference between the two product typologies, contrary to what has been argued by mainstream research (e.g., Pham, 1998; Malhotra, 2005; O’Brien and O’Brien, 2010) but in line with recent studies (Vila-López and Küster-Boluda, 2018). Further, findings of this study show that when a consumer is exposed to a functional product, the physiological emotional responses are disassociated from the self-reported ones, indicating that unconscious emotions generated by functional products may not be consciously recognized. Findings hold for arousal, pleasure, and involvement, confirming H2a, H2b, and H2c. Specifically, for arousal, we found that EDA_T and Phasic Max measures were not significantly correlated with self-reported arousal, while ISCR was negatively correlated. Similarly, physiological pleasure (PI) and physiological attention (AI) were not correlated with the respective self-reported measure of pleasure and situational involvement.

Conversely, for the hedonic product, results show a significant correlation between self-reported and physiological arousal, suggesting that unconscious arousal has been recognized at the conscious level by individuals, according to our H3a. In particular, our findings show that self-reported arousal significantly correlates with physiological arousal measured through the combined effect of cardiac and respiratory activity (PSDc/r). However, we found no correlation between self-reported and physiological pleasure and involvement, thus not confirming H3b and H3c. Such dissimilarity in findings may explain the recent controversial results of some works (e.g., Liao et al., 2016) that depict how hedonic offer may generate different outputs in terms of pleasure and arousal. Hedonic products, indeed, may generate higher pleasure than functional products only in some interaction modes (Liao et al., 2016), underlying the need of further research on this emotional reaction (Alba and Williams, 2013).

It should be noticed that, as suggested by literature (Chaudhuri, 2002; Groeppel-Klein, 2005), arousal and involvement show to be strongly connected, being self-reported measures of arousal and situational involvement positively correlated for both the hedonic and the functional products. The same holds for physiological measures, where the subject’s attention (AI), as quantified using information from the brain signals, significantly increases with increased activation of the sympathetic nervous system, as quantified using information from the EDA signal (ISCR and PhasicMax). Interestingly, for the hedonic consumption scenario, such connection is evident in the correlation between self-reported and physiological measures of arousal. Here physiological arousal measured through PSDc/r correlated with both self-reported arousal and self-reported involvement, providing further confirmation to H3a. Thus, our findings provide support to the assumption that, even when arousal is elicited similarly in both hedonic and utilitarian consumption, individuals are more likely to consciously recognize their emotional responses for hedonic consumption only.

The study contributes to research in three main directions. First of all, it warrants new findings to research on functional and hedonic consumption by depicting the different emotional reactions that consumers show while interacting with such product typologies. Despite numerous writers suggesting that hedonic, but not functional, products provide emotional experiences to individuals, we determine that functional products elicit emotional feelings in the consumer in the same extent as hedonic products.

Secondly, results show that functional products elicit unconscious emotions in consumers that, however, are not consciously recognized. Conversely, unconscious arousal and involvement generated through hedonic consumption are consciously recognized by consumers and thus can be reported. This finding may explain the lack of emotional reactions toward functional products found in prior research. The self-reported methods used in all prior studies (e.g., Kempf, 1999) may have been inadequate to detect the emotional reactions toward functional products. As we show in this work, even if consumers feel aroused and engaged, they can report it only for the hedonic product and not for functional ones. Thus, we propose an alternative explanation to the apparent lack of affect-rich experiences elicited by functional products that research has neglected. Results stress the need to reconsider emotional reactions for utilitarian products as well. From a managerial perspective, this provides new weight to emotional communication strategies, as marketers may evaluate the opportunity to convey emotional and visceral messages to promote utilitarian products above hedonic ones. This is especially relevant in light of the aforementioned role of subjective evaluations of the product nature, more than objective classification, for which marketing communication plays a major role.

This leads to the third contribution of this work, which is methodological. The study, indeed, shows that traditional instruments, such as surveys, and physiological analyses provide complementary information about the feelings and emotions generated by products. The former detect the conscious emotions for which the consumer is aware and thus can report. The latter provide information about the unconscious emotional reactions that research acknowledges as powerful drivers of decision-making (e.g., Kihlstrom et al., 2000; Ivonin et al., 2013). Thus, this research provides an initial step toward using physiological responses to deeply evaluate a consumer’s experience with new products. In line with such results, we suggest that marketers and product managers should adopt physiological methods in combination with self-reported ones to properly assess the experience evoked by their products both earlier along the new product development process and at the end of the process to develop marketing communication accordingly.

The findings of this work are expected to be particularly robust due to the deployment of an experimental study in a laboratory setting using two different assessment methods: self-reported measures and physiological ones. Moreover, several physiological tools (electroencephalography, electrocardiogram, respiratory activity, and EDA) have been used to assess the emotional reactions of consumers. However, the choice of the laboratory experiment as the empirical setting, despite the fact that it provides higher internal validity being not affected by external influences, is lower in external validity. The artificiality of the setting, indeed, may have produced unnatural behaviors or reactions in consumers that do not reflect real-life behaviors. Thus, it limits generalizability to real environments in which consumers interact with products.

Additionally, future research is needed to replicate and extend our findings. In this work, we tested two electronic devices that, despite having been validated as representative of the hedonic and functional typologies (Bettiga et al., 2017a), pertain to a specific product category. Thus, we suggest replicating our study on different product categories to understand if differences in emotional reactions may occur. It would be particularly interesting to deploy such a study on product categories that are balanced in terms of functional and hedonic features to explore the role of consumer subjective evaluation in their classification and their subsequent emotional responses toward consumption. Similarly, the empirical test has been conducted on consumers of a restricted age range. Even if a reduced age range is necessary for physiological experiments, to assure the comparability of data collected, a replication of such empirical study on other consumer segments may provide additional information on the consumer’s emotional patterns.

Finally, we measured emotions through physiological measures and self-reported scales, revealing that both measures are necessary and showing that conscious and unconscious emotions are, in some instances, not aligned, in others positively correlated. However, it would be interesting if future studies could investigate the extent of such relationships and additional factors that may affect them.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. There are several reasons why an explicit approval by an Ethics Committee was not necessary: the participants are adults, the research does not involve vulnerable subjects, the participation in the study is voluntary, it is a minimal risk research, all data collected is treated anonymously. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.