CONSUMPTION, RELATIVE DEPRIVATION AND MENTAL HEALTH: EVIDENCE FROM HEDONIC CONSUMPTION
- Liviu Poenaru
- Sep 11
- 2 min read
Aug. 2025
Introduction: In recent years, relative deprivation related to consumption has sparked intense debate, particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic caused incalculable economic losses worldwide. However, the relationship between relative deprivation related to consumption and mental health remains largely unexplored. This study investigates how both vertical (household-level) and horizontal (household-to-household) relative deprivation related to consumption affect mental health, with a focus on hedonic consumption, and identifies underlying channels and moderating factors.
Methods: We analyze data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) covering 88,144 observations from 2010 to 2018. Hedonic consumption is measured through expenditure on items such as jewelry, antiques, and entertainment, while consumption inequality is assessed using the Kakwani index. Mental health is evaluated using the CES-D and Kessler 6 scales. Ordinary least squares (OLS) and two-stage least squares (2SLS) methods are employed.
Results: Our findings show that reductions in hedonic consumption negatively impact mental health, with involuntary and sudden declines resulting in more pronounced deterioration. Furthermore, greater consumption inequality exacerbates mental health issues, and perceived unfair treatment amplifies this effect. Additionally, self-perception and trust levels are identified as key channels through which these effects. Furthermore, cultural variations and social capital are moderating roles to diminish the adverse mental health.
Conclusion: This study advances our understanding of how relative deprivation related to consumption affects mental health and offers valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to address these challenges.
READ FULL ARTICLE
OUR COMMENT
This article highlights an essential yet deeply problematic mechanism: mental health is directly affected by disparities in consumption, particularly when it comes to hedonic goods associated with social prestige. The authors show that relative deprivation—feeling that one consumes less than one’s peers—leads to deteriorations in psychological well-being, exacerbated by perceptions of unfairness and rising inequality. However, by limiting itself to an econometric approach, the study implicitly naturalizes the link between consumption and mental health, as if this dependency were an immutable fact. It overlooks the reality that this link is the product of a socio-economic system that has injected into subjectivities the equivalence between social recognition, self-esteem, and the ability to consume.
From a critical perspective, these findings should instead be read as symptoms of an economic order that has colonized affects and redefined individual value through ostentatious consumption. The real scandal is not that consumption artificially supports mental health, but that social and cultural conditions compel individuals to measure their dignity and well-being in terms of superfluous goods. Far from calling for the stimulation of consumption, these data underscore the urgency of disentangling mental health from market logics and opening up pathways where recognition, trust, and social bonds can exist independently of unconscious economic codes.
Comments