Consumers make individual decisions for their own, others’, and joint consumption. This research introduces a framework for understanding the process of making individual decisions for joint consumption by comparing them with individual decisions for the self and for others (e.g., gifts). Seven experiments show that individual decisions for joint consumption, which involve considering one's own and others’ preferences, consistently increase felt responsibility for unsatisfactory outcomes and decrease confidence in one's ability to make satisfactory choices compared with decisions for the self. Knowledge of others’ preferences plays a critical role in differentiating between individual decisions for joint versus others’ consumption; congruent (incongruent) preferences increase (decrease) confidence in decisions for joint consumption, while any knowledge of others’ preferences—regardless of congruity—increases confidence in decisions for others. Three managerially relevant downstream consequences that differ among individual decisions for joint, self, and others’ consumption are identified: decision anxiety, choice of assortment options, and choice of popular options. These insights offer valuable strategies for marketers to tailor their product offerings and communications to consumers engaged in individual decisions for joint, own, or others’ consumption.
ArielyDanLevavJonathan (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 279–90.
2.
BarnesAaron J.ShavittSharon (2024), “Top Rated or Best Seller? Cultural Differences in Responses to Attitudinal Versus Behavioral Consensus Cues,” Journal of Consumer Research, 51 (2), 276–97.
3.
BaskinErnestWakslakCheryl J.TropeYaacovNovemskyNathan (2014), “Why Feasibility Matters More to Gift Receivers Than to Givers: A Construal-Level Approach to Gift Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 169–82.
4.
BeardenWilliam O.HardestyDavid M.RoseRandall L. (2001), “Consumer Self-Confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 121–34.
5.
BelkRussell W. (1976), “It’s the Thought That Counts: A Signed Digraph Analysis of Gift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (3), 155–62.
6.
BergerIda E.MitchellAndrew A. (1989), “The Effect of Advertising on Attitude Accessibility, Attitude Confidence, and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 269–79.
7.
BettmanJames R.LuceMary FrancesPayneJohn W. (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 187–217.
8.
BhargaveRajeshMontgomeryNicole Votolato (2013), “The Social Context of Temporal Sequences: Why First Impressions Shape Shared Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 501–17.
9.
BrickDanielle J.ZhouLingruiChartrandTanya L.FitzsimonsGavan J. (2022), “Better to Decide Together: Shared Consumer Decision Making, Perceived Power, and Relationship Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32 (3), 387–405.
10.
ChanCindyMogilnerCassie (2017), “Experiential Gifts Foster Stronger Social Relationships Than Material Gifts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 913–31.
11.
ChernevAlexander (2006), “Decision Focus and Consumer Choice Among Assortments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (1), 50–59.
12.
CialdiniRobert B.RenoRaymond R.KallgrenCarl A. (1990), “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (6), 1015–26.
13.
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.
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.
DuhachekAdam (2005), “Coping: A Multidimensional, Hierarchical Framework of Responses to Stressful Consumption Episodes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 41–53.
16.
DzhoglevaHristinaLambertonCait Poynor (2014), “Should Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-Control Decisions in Dyads,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 361–80.
17.
EtkinJordan (2016), “Choosing Variety for Joint Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (6), 1019–33.
18.
EtkinJordanEvangelidisIoannisAakerJennifer (2015), “Pressed for Time? Goal Conflict Shapes How Time Is Perceived, Spent, and Valued,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (3), 394–406.
19.
FlynnFrancis J.AdamsGabrielle S. (2009), “Money Can’t Buy Love: Asymmetric Beliefs About Gift Price and Feelings of Appreciation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (2), 404–09.
20.
Garcia-RadaXimenaAnikLalinArielyDan (2019), “Consuming Together (Versus Separately) Makes the Heart Grow Fonder,” Marketing Letters, 30 (1), 27–43.
21.
Garcia-RadaXimenaKimTami (2021), “Shared Time Scarcity and the Pursuit of Extraordinary Experiences,” Psychological Science, 32 (12), 1871–83.
22.
GinoFrancescaFlynnFrancis J. (2011), “Give Them What They Want: The Benefits of Explicitness in Gift Exchange,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (5), 915–22.
23.
GorlinMargaritaDharRavi (2012), “Bridging the Gap Between Joint and Individual Decisions: Deconstructing Preferences in Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 320–23.
24.
GrahamJesseHaidtJonathanNosekBrian A. (2009), “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (5), 1029–46.
KimNicole You JeungZwebnerYonatBaraschAlixandraSchriftRom (2022), “You Must Have a Preference: The Impact of No-Preference Communication on Joint Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing Research, 60 (1), 52–71.
27.
KuglerTamarConnollyTerryOrdóñezLisa D. (2012), “Emotion, Decision, and Risk: Betting on Gambles Versus Betting on People,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25 (2), 123–34.
28.
LeeKyoungmiKimHakkyunVohsKathleen D. (2011), “Stereotype Threat in the Marketplace: Consumer Anxiety and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 343–57.
29.
LernerJennifer S.KeltnerDacher (2001), “Fear, Anger, and Risk,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (1), 146–59.
30.
LiuPeggy J.DallasSteven K.FitzsimonsGavan J. (2019), “A Framework for Understanding Consumer Choices for Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (3), 407–34.
31.
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.
32.
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.
33.
LuceMary Frances (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409–33.
34.
LuceMary FrancesPayneJohn W.BettmanJames R. (2001), “The Impact of Emotional Tradeoff Difficulty on Decision Behavior,” in Conflict and Tradeoffs in Decision Making, WeberElke U.BaronJonathanLoomesGraham, eds. Cambridge University Press, 86–109.
35.
MoreyRajendra A.McCarthyGregorySelgradeElizabeth S.SethSrishtiNasserJessica D.LaBarKevin S. (2012), “Neural Systems for Guilt from Actions Affecting Self Versus Others,” Neuroimage, 60 (1), 683–92.
36.
OppenheimerDaniel M.MeyvisTomDavidenkoNicolas (2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867–72.
37.
OtnesCeleLowreyTina M.KimYoung Chan (1993), “Gift Selection for Easy and Difficult Recipients: A Social Roles Interpretation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 229–44.
38.
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.
39.
RaghunathanRajagopalPhamMichel Tuan (1999), “All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79 (1), 56–77.
40.
RamanathanSureshMcGillAnn L. (2007), “Consuming with Others: Social Influences on Moment-to-Moment and Retrospective Evaluations of an Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 506–24.
41.
RatnerRebecca K.KahnBarbara E. (2002), “The Impact of Private Versus Public Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 246–57.
42.
RuthJulie A.OtnesCele C.BrunelFrederic F. (1999), “Gift Receipt and the Reformulation of Interpersonal Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (4), 385–402.
43.
SedikidesConstantineCampbellW. KeithReaderGlenn D.ElliotAndrew J. (1999), “The Relationship Closeness Induction Task,” Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4.
44.
SherryJohn F.Jr.McGrathMary AnnLevySidney J. (1993), “The Dark Side of the Gift,” Journal of Business Research, 28 (3), 225–44.
45.
SimonsonItamar (2008), “Will I Like a ‘Medium’ Pillow? Another Look at Constructed and Inherent Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (3), 155–69.
46.
SpencerSteven J.ZannaMark P.FongGeoffrey T. (2005), “Establishing a Causal Chain: Why Experiments Are Often More Effective Than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 845–51.
47.
SteffelMaryLe BoeufRobyn A. (2014), “Overindividuation in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1167–80.
48.
SteffelMaryWilliamsElanor F. (2018), “Delegating Decisions: Recruiting Others to Make Choices We Might Regret,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (5), 1015–32.
49.
SteffelMaryWilliamsElanor F.Perrmann-GrahamJaclyn (2016), “Passing the Buck: Delegating Choices to Others to Avoid Responsibility and Blame,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 32–44.
50.
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.
51.
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.
52.
WarrenCalebCampbellMargaret C. (2014), “What Makes Things Cool? How Autonomy Influences Perceived Coolness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 543–63.
53.
WootenDavid B. (2000), “Qualitative Steps Toward an Expanded Model of Anxiety in Gift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 84–95.
54.
WuEugenia C.MooreSarah G.FitzsimonsGavan J. (2019), “Wine for the Table: Self-Construal, Group Size, and Choice for Self and Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (3), 508–27.
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.
