Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consuming together (versus separately) makes the heart grow fonder

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Across three studies, we investigate how consumers in romantic relationships make decisions when choosing an item to share with their partner. We show that consumers will forgo their preferred alternative for an option that is more aligned with the preferences of their partner when consuming the same item together vs. separately. We theorize and show that when consuming together (vs. separately), consumers’ purchase motivation shifts from being utilitarian (e.g., satisfying one’s hunger) to hedonic (e.g., having an enjoyable evening). Consequently, when consuming together (vs. separately), consumers weigh more highly their partner’s affective reactions to the item and overall experience—leading them to pick a less preferred option in an effort to please their partner. In sum, we provide a framework that contributes novel insight into the trade-offs consumers make between their preferences and the preferences of others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There was no association between the choice made by the participant and the choice made by their partner (χ2(1) = 0.45, p = .502) and thus, we treated data as independent observations.

References

  • Ariely, D., & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1981). Bargaining: power, tactics and outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belch, G. E., Belch, M. A., & Ceresino, G. (1985). Parental and teenage child influences in family decision making. Journal of Business Research, 13, 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blood, R. O., Jr., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: the dynamics of married living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2010). The locus of choice: personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1065–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, L. A. (2016). Consumer behavior in close relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 101–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. C., Chuang, S. C., Cheng, Y. H., & Huang, T. Y. (2012). The compromise effect in choosing for others. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Fishbach, A. (2011). Choice as an end versus a means. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 544–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., Kim, B. K., Choi, I., & Yi, Y. (2006). Variety-seeking tendency in choice for others: interpersonal and intrapersonal causes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 590–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corfman, K. P., & Lehmann, D. R. (1987). Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H. L. (1976). Decision making within the household. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 241–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filiatrault, P., & Ritchie, J. B. (1980). Joint purchasing decisions: a comparison of influence structure in family and couple decision-making units. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., Grégoire, Y., & Murray, K. B. (2013). The limited effects of power on satisfaction with joint consumption decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2012). Bridging the gap between joint and individual decisions: deconstructing preferences in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 320–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, D. J. (1974). Family buying decisions: a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 295–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laran, J. (2010). Goal management in sequential choices: consumer choices for others are more indulgent than personal choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 304–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, P. J., Campbell, T. H., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2013). Matching choices to avoid offending stigmatized group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munsinger, G. M., Weber, J. E., & Hansen, R. W. (1975). Joint home purchasing decisions by husbands and wives. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 60–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W. (1982). Joint decisions in home purchasing: a muddling-through process. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polman, E. (2012). Self–other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 304–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1978). Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertenbroch, K., Dhar, R., & Khan, U. (2005). A behavioral decision theory perspective on hedonic and utilitarian choice. In: Inside Consumption. Routledge, pp 166–187.

  • Whitley, S. C., Trudel, R., & Kurt, D. (2018). The influence of purchase motivation on perceived preference uniqueness and assortment size choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 710–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., Berridge, K. C., & Wilbarger, J. L. (2005). Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 121–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, A. X., & Urminsky, O. (2018). The smile-seeking hypothesis: how immediate affective reactions motivate and reward gift giving. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1221–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael I. Norton, John Gourville, and Vladimir Chituc for their invaluable comments. The authors also thank Aaron Nichols, Joseph Branson, and Dhrumil Patel for their assistance with data collection for study 1. Finally, the authors thank the Museum of Life and Science in Durham for their collaboration with administering the field study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Business School, Morgan Hall, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA, 02163, USA

    Ximena Garcia-Rada

  2. University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, 100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

    Lalin Anik

  3. Duke University, 334 Blackwell Street Suite 320, Durham, NC, 27701, USA

    Dan Ariely

Authors
  1. Ximena Garcia-Rada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lalin Anik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dan Ariely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ximena Garcia-Rada.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garcia-Rada, X., Anik, L. & Ariely, D. Consuming together (versus separately) makes the heart grow fonder. Mark Lett 30, 27–43 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-019-09479-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-019-09479-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation