A Collaborative Paper on "Compensatory Consumption Behavior" Officially Published
Jun 08-2026
The details are as follows:
A co-authored paper titled "When compensatory consumption backfires: The asymmetric effect of self-threat on consumption preference and satisfaction" by Ma Jingjing—Associate Professor (tenured) of Management at the National School of Development, Peking University, Mulan Scholar, and Director of the Peking University Global Women's Leadership Research Center—has been formally published in the management journal Journal of Business Research.
Research findings:
Compensatory consumption behavior refers to the act of selecting certain products or experiences to bolster the self and counteract threats when an individual's self-concept is challenged. While such threat-induced shifts in preferences have been widely documented, consumers’ post-consumption satisfaction with the compensatory options they choose remains an underexplored issue. This study reveals the circumstances under which compensatory consumption can "backfire" and explains why: a self-threat may heighten a consumer’s preference for a compensatory option at the choice stage, yet reduce their satisfaction with it at the actual consumption stage. The research finds that, compared with cross-domain compensatory consumption (e.g., buying a product that makes one feel more attractive after an intellectual threat), within-domain compensatory consumption (e.g., buying a product that makes one feel smarter after an intellectual threat) is more likely to backfire. Further investigation shows that the underlying mechanism of this backfire effect is consumers’ rumination on the threatening event during the consumption stage.
Practical implications:
"Within-domain compensation" can backfire.
When people attempt to compensate in the same domain (e.g., buying products to feel smarter after an intellectual setback, consuming romantic products after a romantic frustration, or purchasing "successful parenting experience" after struggling with child-rearing), they may be more inclined to make a purchase or consumption decision, but their ultimate consumption satisfaction tends to be even lower.
The reason lies in "emotional sting."
During compensatory consumption, people unconsciously ruminate on the self-threat, causing negative emotions to resurface and thereby diminishing the positive feeling that the compensatory behavior is meant to bring.
Experiential consumption is more affected.
Compared with purchasing physical goods, experiential consumption (e.g., travel, shows, classes, scrolling through short videos, watching movies) is more susceptible to this backfire effect, because experiences are more likely to trigger emotions and self-reflection.
In a nutshell:
When we try to use consumption to "fix ourselves," the compensation that hits closest to the wound is most likely to make the wound ache all over again.
The abstract from its original English version：
Compensatory consumption behaviors occur when a threat to one’s self-concept is followed by the choice of goods and experiences intended to bolster the self against the threat. While the shift in preferences is well documented, how satisfied consumers are with the chosen compensatory option remains an open question. This research identifies when and why compensatory consumption is likely to backfire (i.e., a self-threat that increases consumers’ preferences for a compensatory option at the choice stage can decrease their subsequent satisfaction with that option at the consumption stage). We find that within-domain compensatory consumption (e.g., buying something that makes one feel smart after a threat to one’s intelligence) is more likely to backfire compared to cross-domain compensatory compensation (e.g., buying something that makes one feel beautiful after a threat to one’s intelligence). Rumination on the threat at the consumption stage is identified as the underlying mechanism for this backfire effect.
