In many joint consumption decisions, such as choosing a restaurant or a movie to watch together, one party often communicates to the other that they do not have a particular preference among the options (e.g., “I have no preference,” “I’m fine with any option”). Despite their prevalence, little is known about how communications of no preference impact joint decision making and the consumption experience. Do consumers take the other party's indifference at face value? Does the decision become easier to make without one party's preference to incorporate? How will such communications ultimately impact consumption and social utility? In a series of six studies using both hypothetical and real joint consumption decisions, the authors find that recipients of no-preference communication infer that the co-consumer (i.e., the person communicating having no preferences) actually does have preferences but is not disclosing them. These perceptions of undisclosed preferences increase the decision makers’ decision difficulty and cause them to like the co-consumer less. Further, the authors find that the decision maker intuits that the co-consumer's (undisclosed) preferences are probably dissimilar to their own, which leads them to choose an option they like less and ultimately decreases their enjoyment. Interestingly, these negative effects are not anticipated by the party who communicates having no preference.
AbelerJohannesCalakiJuljanaAndreeKaiBasekChristoph (2010), “The Power of Apology,” Economics Letters, 107 (2), 233–35.
2.
AltmanIrwinTaylorDalmas A. (1973), Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3.
AribargAnochaAroraNeerajBodurH. Onur (2002), “Understanding the Role of Preference Revision and Concession in Group Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (3), 336–49.
4.
BaraschAlixandraBermanJonathan Z.SmallDeborah A. (2016), “When Payment Undermines the Pitch: On the Persuasiveness of Pure Motives in Fund-Raising,” Psychological Science, 27 (10), 1388–97.
5.
BelkRussell (2010), “Sharing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 715–34.
6.
BergerJonah (2014), “Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication: A Review and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (4), 586–607.
7.
BobkoPhilipBarelkaAlex J.HirshfieldLeanne M.LyonsJoseph B. (2014), “Invited Article: The Construct of Suspicion and How It Can Benefit Theories and Models in Organizational Science,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 29 (3), 335–42.
8.
BurnsAlvin C.GranboisDonald H. (1977), “Factors Moderating the Resolution of Preference Conflict in Family Automobile Purchasing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (1), 77–86.
9.
CampbellMargaret C.KirmaniAmna (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83.
10.
ChaudhryShereen J.LoewensteinGeorge (2019), “Thanking, Apologizing, Bragging, and Blaming: Responsibility Exchange Theory and The Currency of Communication,” Psychological Review, 126 (3), 313–44.
11.
ClarksonJoshua J.JaniszewskiChrisCinelliMelissa D. (2013), “The Desire for Consumption Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1313–29.
12.
CorfmanKim P.LehmannDonald 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.
13.
DavisHarry L. (1976), “Decision Making Within the Household,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (4), 241–60.
14.
DavisHarry L.HochStephen J.RagsdaleE.K. Easton (1986), “An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 25–37.
15.
DeCarloThomas E. (2005), “The Effects of Sales Message and Suspicion of Ulterior Motives on Salesperson Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (3), 238–49.
16.
DePauloBella M.KashyDeborah A.KirkendolSusan E.WyerMelissa M.EpsteinJennifer A. (1996), “Lying in Everyday Life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (5), 979–95.
17.
DePauloPeter J.DePauloBella M. (1989), “Can Deception by Salespersons and Customers Be Detected Through Nonverbal Behavioral Cues?” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 (18), 1552–77.
18.
DzhoglevaHristinaLambertonCait Poynor (2014), “Should Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-Control Decisions in Dyads,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 361–80.
19.
EdwardsKariSmithEdward E. (1996), “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1), 5–24.
20.
EelenJiskaÖzturanPerenVerleghPeeter W.J. (2017), “The Differential Impact of Brand Loyalty on Traditional and Online Word of Mouth: The Moderating Roles of Self-Brand Connection and the Desire to Help The Brand,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34 (4), 872–91.
21.
FeinStevenHiltonJames L. (1994), “Judging Others in the Shadow of Suspicion,” Motivation and Emotion, 18 (2), 167–98.
22.
FisherRobert J.GrégoireYanyMurrayKyle B. (2011), “The Limited Effects of Power on Satisfaction with Joint Consumption Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (3), 277–89.
23.
FriestadMarianWrightPeter (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
24.
GalakJeffGiviJulianWilliamsElanor F. (2016), “Why Certain Gifts Are Great to Give but Not to Get: A Framework for Understanding Errors in Gift Giving,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25 (6), 380–85.
25.
Garcia-RadaXimenaAnikLalinArielyDan (2019), “Consuming Together (Versus Separately) Makes the Heart Grow Fonder,” Marketing Letters, 30 (1), 27–43.
26.
GorlinMargaritaDharRavi (2012), “Bridging the Gap Between Joint and Individual Decisions: Deconstructing Preferences in Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 320–23.
27.
GriceHerbert P. (1975), “Logic and Conversation,” in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, ColeP.MorganJ.L., eds. New York: Academic Press, 41–85.
28.
HayesAndrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Publications.
29.
HiltonDenis J. (1995), “The Social Context of Reasoning: Conversational Inference and Rational Judgment,” Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 248–71.
30.
HiltonJames L.FeinStevenMillerDale T. (1993), “Suspicion and Dispositional Inference,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (5), 501–12.
31.
HoltgravesThomas (1986), “Language Structure in Social Interaction: Perceptions of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts and Interactants Who Use Them,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (2), 305–14.
32.
JohnLeslie K.BaraszKateNortonMichael I. (2016), “Hiding Personal Information Reveals the Worst,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (4), 954–59.
33.
KardasMichaelShawAlexCarusoEugene M. (2018), “How to Give Away Your Cake and Eat It Too: Relinquishing Control Prompts Reciprocal Generosity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115 (6), 1054–74.
34.
KeeneyRalph L.KirkwoodCraig W. (1975), “Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions,” Management Science, 22 (4), 430–37.
35.
KimRachel K.LevineTimothy R. (2011), “The Effect of Suspicion on Deception Detection Accuracy: Optimal Level or Opposing Effects?” Communication Reports, 24 (2), 51–62.
36.
KirchlerErich (1993), “Spouses’ Joint Purchase Decisions: Determinants of Influence Tactics for Muddling Through the Process,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 14 (2), 405–38.
37.
KruglanskiArie W. (1989), “The Psychology of Being ‘Right’: The Problem of Accuracy in Social Perception and Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin, 106 (3), 395–409.
38.
KundaZiva (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3), 480–98.
39.
LambertNathaniel M.FinchamFrank D. (2011), “Expressing Gratitude to a Partner Leads to More Relationship Maintenance Behavior,” Emotion, 11 (1), 52–60.
40.
LerougeDavyWarlopLuk (2006), “Why It Is So Hard to Predict Our Partner’s Product Preferences: The Effect of Target Familiarity on Prediction Accuracy,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 393–402.
41.
LevineEmma E.SchweitzerMaurice E. (2015), “Prosocial Lies: When Deception Breeds Trust,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88–106.
42.
LiuPeggy J.DallasSteven K.FitzsimonsGavan J. (2019), “A Framework for Understanding Consumer Choices for Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (3), 407–34.
43.
LiuPeggy J.MinKate E. (2020), “Where Do You Want to Go for Dinner? A Preference Expression Asymmetry in Joint Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (6), 1037–54.
44.
LopezJessica M.WoolleyKaitlinMcGillAnn L. (2021), “A Preference for Preference: Lack of Subjective Preference Evokes Dehumanization,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 164, 52–67.
45.
LoweMichaelNikolovaHristinaMillerChadwick J.DommerSara Loughran (2019), “Ceding and Succeeding: How the Altruistic Can Benefit from the Selfish in Joint Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (4), 652–61.
46.
MaioGregory R.ThomasGeoffFinchamFrank D.CarnelleyKatherine B. (2008), “Unraveling the Role of Forgiveness in Family Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (2), 307–19.
47.
MooreSarah G.FitzsimonsGráinne M.FitzsimonsGavan J. (2020), “She’ll Take Two: Relationship Interdependence and Negative Emotion in Everyday Choice for Others,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5 (3), 335–44.
48.
Mullen, BrianJennifer L. Debbie S. Champion, Cecelia Edwards, Dana Hardy, John E. Story (1985), “The False Consensus Effect: A Meta-Analysis of 115 Hypothesis Tests,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21 (3), 262–83.
49.
NortonMichael I.FrostJeana H.ArielyDan (2007), “Less Is More: The Lure of Ambiguity, or Why Familiarity Breeds Contempt,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (1), 97–105.
50.
ParkC. Whan (1982), “Joint Decisions in Home Purchasing: A Muddling-Through Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 151–62.
51.
ParkYoobinImpettEmily A.MacDonaldGeoffLemay Jr.Edward P. (2019), “Saying ‘Thank You’: Partners’ Expressions of Gratitude Protect Relationship Satisfaction and Commitment from the Harmful Effects of Attachment Insecurity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117 (4), 773–806.
52.
QuallsWilliam J. (1987), “Household Decision Behavior: The Impact of Husbands’ and Wives’ Sex Role Orientation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (2), 264–79.
53.
RaghunathanRajagopalCorfmanKim (2006), “Is Happiness Shared Doubled and Sadness Shared Halved? Social Influence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 386–94.
RosenDennis L.GranboisDonald H. (1983), “Determinants of Role Structure in Family Financial Management,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 253–58.
56.
RossLeeGreeneDavidHousePamela (1977), “The False Consensus Effect: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (3), 279–301.
57.
SandersGlenn S.MullenBrian (1983), “Accuracy in Perceptions of Consensus: Differential Tendencies of People with Majority and Minority Positions,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 13 (1), 57–70.
58.
SchulYaacovMayoRuthBurnsteinEugene (2004), “Encoding Under Trust and Distrust: The Spontaneous Activation of Incongruent Cognitions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (5), 668–79.
59.
SedikidesConstantineCampbellW. KeithReederGlenn D.ElliotAndrew J. (1999), “The Relationship Closeness Induction Task,” Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4.
60.
SimpsonJeffry A.GriskeviciusVladasRothmanAlexander J. (2012), “Consumer Decisions in Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 304–14.
61.
SitkinSim B.RothNancy L. (1993), “Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust,” Organization Science, 4 (3), 367–92.
62.
SpiroRosann L. (1983), “Persuasion in Family Decision-Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (4), 393–402.
63.
SteffelMaryWilliamsElanor F. (2017), “Delegating Decisions: Recruiting Others to Make Choices We Might Regret,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (5), 1015–32.
64.
SuChentingFernEdward F.YeKeying (2003), “A Temporal Dynamic Model of Spousal Family Purchase-Decision Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 268–81.
65.
SulsJerryWanChoi K. (1987), “In Search of the False-Uniqueness Phenomenon: Fear and Estimates of Social Consensus,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1), 211–17.
66.
TuYanpingShawAlexFishbachAyelet (2016), “The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (5), 669–87.
67.
TukMirjam A.VerleghPeeter W.J.SmidtsAleWigboldusDaniel H.J. (2009), “Sales and Sincerity: The Role of Relational Framing in Word-of-Mouth Marketing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (1), 38–47.
68.
Van LangePaul A.M.KuhlmanD. Michael (1994), “Social Value Orientations and Impressions of Partner's Honesty and Intelligence: A Test of the Might Versus Morality Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (1), 126–41.
69.
VerleghPeeter W.J.RyuGangseogTukMirjam A.FeickLawrence (2013), “Receiver Responses to Rewarded Referrals: The Motive Inferences Framework,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (6), 669–82.
70.
WeaverKimberleeHambyAnne (2019), “The Sounds of Silence: Inferences from the Absence of Word-of-Mouth,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (1), 3–21.
71.
WuYuechenHamiltonRebecca W.KimNicole You JeungRatnerRebecca K. (2021), “Navigating Shared Consumption Experiences: Clarity About a Partner’s Interests Increases Enjoyment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 58 (3), 439–55.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
