The study outline says that the groups were asked to write a description of their "material purchases" and their "experiential purchases." What I wonder is whether the people who bought things like a new poster frame, or ski boots were more likely to end up writing -about- the experience of purchasing it, or the novelty of finding the object and having the feeling of 'having' to buy it, which has since worn off (they have seen so many other objects) and thus have not triggered the same sense of -user- and -owner- experiential satisfaction of their purchases in their description. Ex. I love my new winter coat, its stylish, when I saw it I just had to have it. When I first saw it I thought it was the greatest color, there was that buyers rush. But there is another facet of the purchase, the wool doesn't make me breakout, I have yet to see such a quality item on sale, I have not caught cold this season, I have received compliments, the sleeves don't scratch my wrists, I actually feel warm outside. I am happy in the coat. But somehow those feelings aren't tapped into with the question asked about the purchase. Whereas opera tickets that I bought make me immediately think of the lovely evening I had a while back.

My point is that I think there is another reason why experience fare better than possessions in this study: thinking about buying the 'wool coat' is just like buying the opera 'ticket' and 'experiencing' the coat (wearing, washing, using) is equal to going to the opera.

Now assuming that the wording wasn't bias when people were asked to describe their purchases, and people just naturally made the distinction between describing the object in the one case and the experience in the other (which I am completely willing to believe) then the distinction is being made by the subjects and the conclusions are valid. That is, asking someone about an object's purchase does not trigger them to evaluate the experiences it provides. I.e. the ability to kayak with great pleasure, avoid catching cold by owning a new coat, etc.

There are a couple inevitable cross overs I wonder about though, what of books & films? Is it an object or an experience? Can one separate out the experience from the object? Sounds like a new experiment to me...

All in all, I still like this experiment.

So where does one draw the line between materialistic and experiential accessory? Hard to tell.

Well.. on my past comment, doubtless I am defending my own materialism as necessary :-D

The author also states that it is difficult to view objects such as a car in an abstract sense.

IMHO here is where the materialistic and the experiential blend. To a person without a car, or to perhaps an elderly person who loses their capacity to drive- well, a car is abstract indeed, it symbolizes freedom, autonomy.

Money itself won't make people happy, of course, but money if used intelligently, can improve lives- education, travel.. and yes, some well considered material choices. If I spend money on a kayak I don't spend money on the kayak to sit and admire it. I buy it because it opens worlds to me. That sounds pretty experiential to me.

If I go out to dinner with friends.. actually, I don't get scads of pleasure from this sort of experience. Kayaking with a friend? Now, that rocks. But how do I do it without the kayak?

The focus of this study still seems narrow because of the types of purchases it focuses on, and the subjects (students).

"...it's not about how much we earn, it's about how much we earn in comparison to other people. It's the social comparison, then, not the actual amount of money, that affects how we feel about our earnings."

If greater emphasis had been placed on the relative or comparative sums involved rather than on the actual sums involved being indicative of social rather than (as I argue) economic comparison, then the study might have reached a conclusion which was far more commonsensical. Without taking account of the economic understandings of money in an exchange driven economy, one ignores the fact that money is the ultimate token of value exchange, and that in any realistic scenario where one earns half that of the average earner, one's spending power is reduced comparatively. It makes perfect common sense, in other words, to accept a lesser sum where such a sum is twice that of the average wage. The study overstates the social comparison role, as it overlooks participants' common sense reasoning as to how the value of money is derived – that is from its scarcity – and anything else just leads to inflation. More paper does not of necessity equal better paper: look no further than Zimbabwe to see evidence of same! In an attempt to sidestep this fundamental problem, those in the study where asked not only to suspend their belief in how money derives its value but to believe that the market value of money remained constant in both scenarios ; that is to say, that the 100,000 (being half of the average wage) really had twice the spending power of the 50,000 (which was twice that of the average wage). However, is that not akin to asking someone to believe in a paradox? I would submit that not only was such a paradoxical premise but it thereby asked too much suspension of participants' rational expectations as to the value of money. It was the paradoxical impossibility of suggesting that the market value of goods, services etc. could possibly remain constant in both scenarios given that - in accordance with the basic laws of economics - such would be an impossibility. One of the main issues which participants would ordinarily have had to consider was the inflationary pressures to which one would be subject. Furthermore, even if the value of one's money remained constant in both scenarios and thereto defied the basic laws of economics, there is the ever present risk that the normal laws of economics would soon 'catch up' with a participant who accepted more actual money than in the first scenario, but which was half the average wage. What guarantee could there possibly have been that that wouldn't have happened after one received one's wage, even if at the time of accepting one's wage the normal laws of economics were subverted? It would have been appropriate if those conducting the study just looked at the value received rather than the sums received. Thus to receive double the average value is far better than to receive half the average value; and asking participants to believe otherwise led to the arguably false conclusions of this study: it's not so much about social comparisons that persons chose to earn a lesser sum which was twice that of average, it's more, arguably, to do with the fact that participant's are acting rationally; that is to say, in accordance with their rational expectations of how a market should realistically operate. Concluding otherwise was, it is submitted, to underestimate the common sense economic reasoning which participants should have been expected to employ. (TW, London)

My expensive chef's knife makes me happy every day as I use it.I no longer have sore hands from using a crappy knife when I chop 10 or 15 pounds of fruit for jam. And yes, I do this. I also cook daily, I never use processed foods at all.

My Montrail hiking boots make me happy daily when I'm on a hiking trail. My feet and knees don't hurt and those boots take me places and keep my feet warm. Not sure Mario Blahnik pumps would have the same bang for the buck.

A friend who farms loves her new tractor.
Another friend who is a dog musher loves his new sled, also his winter gear- spending money on these things has saved his life on the trail.
Experiential? Materialistic? Gee. Maybe I'm justifying materialism. These items are purchases of 'things' but they have fundamental practical use and make life easier and safer. If materialism purely.. then it seems materialism in these cases is the gift that keeps on giving.
It would be interesting to see the study broadened to other age groups. Also to see it broadened to people who do more than purchase computers and flat screen TVs, gadgets and clothes.

But, when you say:
Less satisfied with life,
Less happy,
More likely to be depressed,
More likely to be paranoid,
More likely to be narcissistic.

Not all of these are can be considered "bad." Worrying about these is merely a "middle-class" occupation i.e., related to how much money one has.

That makes sense to me. As money has no intrinsic value, wouldn't the $100K earner find himself priced out of every market due to forces of supply and demand?