We all have so-called lay theories, or beliefs, about what makes us and others happy and what products and experiences we and others will enjoy. Based on these lay theories, we make decisions about what to buy for ourselves or what gifts to give to others.

For example, I might dream of an exotic beach vacation because I believe that resting at the beach is the best way for me to relax. Or I might believe that my loved ones appreciate physical gifts over gift cards, which is why I spend hours doing holiday shopping instead of buying gift cards with a few clicks online.

These lay theories are based on our own experience and what we hear or read from others. They can offer great guidance when making decisions because people don’t have to think through every little consumption decision in isolation; instead, they can rely on some general ideas about what they and others will enjoy.

Lay Theories Aren’t Perfect

But our lay theories can also be wrong. One example of a lay theory that is commonly held but that is wrong was demonstrated by Jenny Olsen and colleagues (2025) in a recent paper.

Consumers in their studies expressed the belief that to be able to truly enjoy psychological experiences (e.g., a museum visit or a language class) that meet higher-order psychological needs, consumers must first meet their more fundamental needs. In other words, unless one’s need for food, safety, and shelter is met, one cannot enjoy experiences that speak to more psychological needs such as learning or growth. What that means in practice is that consumers believe that those who have little money and who may struggle to meet their fundamental needs cannot really enjoy experiences of learning and growth, until the more fundamental needs are prioritized.

In one study with more than 600 U.S.-based students, participants believed that a poorer person would enjoy a restaurant meal less than a richer person if the food in the restaurant was described as culinary art. This is because participants focused on the poor person’s need for food as sustenance, which must first be met before the food experience can be enjoyed as psychologically enriching. In another study with more than 500 U.S.-based students, participants chose more survival gifts (e.g., a water bottle or gloves) for a low-income person but more enjoyment gifts (e.g., a book or journal) for a high-income person.

Why is this lay theory wrong? In another study with more than 300 participants who had visited a theme park or concert, the authors found that enjoyment of experiences did not depend on income. People enjoyed the experience regardless of whether they were poor or rich, and whether it met their more fundamental or more psychological needs.

This is important because consumers might miss out on their own enjoyment if they focus too much on having all of their needs met first; they might also give gifts to others that are not enjoyable. If they wait until their income is stable to learn a language, visit a museum, or finally join a book club, they might unnecessarily miss out on opportunities for fun, learning, and growth.