The trade-off between quality and quantity pervades many domains of life, including that of making product choices for ourselves and others, whether as gifts or as everyday favors. In five studies (four pre-registered), participants preferred quality over quantity when choosing for a friend versus for themselves. We demonstrate that one reason why this difference in choice for self and other arises is because of heightened self-presentation concerns: People choosing for friends (vs. self) are more concerned about conveying poor taste, thus increasing choice of quality (vs. quantity). Consistent with this process, the effect is mitigated when choosing for a nonjudgmental friend or when choosing for a person whom one does not highly value. Finally, this effect is particular to quality-quantity trade-offs; it does not occur for flavor-quantity trade-offs, indicating that the effect is driven by the quality aspect rather than by the quantity aspect or by cost-per-unit considerations.
AchenreinerG. B.JohnD. R. (2003). The meaning of brand names to children: A developmental investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 205–219.
2.
AlferesV. R.KennyD. A. (2009). SPSS programs for the measurement of nonindependence in standard dyadic designs. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 47–54.
3.
AshworthL.DarkeP. R.SchallerM. (2005). No one wants to look cheap: Trade-offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 295–306.
4.
AtkinsK. G.KimY. K. (2012). Smart shopping: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40, 360–375.
5.
BaskinE.WakslakC. J.TropeY.NovemskyN. (2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 169–182.
6.
BaumeisterR. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
7.
BelkR. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.
8.
BlairS.RoeseN. J. (2013). Balancing the basket: The role of shopping basket composition in embarrassment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 676–691.
9.
CavanaughL. A. (2016). Consumer behavior in close relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 101–106.
10.
ChanC.MogilnerC. (2017). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 913–931.
11.
ChoiJ.KimB. K.ChoiI.YiY. (2006). Variety-seeking tendency in choice for others: Interpersonal and intrapersonal causes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 590–595.
12.
DahlD. W.ManchandaR. V.ArgoJ. J. (2001). Embarrassment in consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 473–481.
13.
ElliottR.LeonardC. (2004). Peer pressure and poverty: Exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the “British poor.”Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 347–359.
14.
EricksonG. M.JohanssonJ. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 195–199.
15.
GalakJ.GiviJ.WilliamsE. 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, 380–385.
16.
GinoF.FlynnF. J. (2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 915–922.
17.
GneezyA.GneezyU.LaugaD. O. (2014). A reference-dependent model of the price–quality heuristic. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 153–164.
18.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
19.
GoodbanN. (1985). The psychological impact of being on welfare. Social Service Review, 59, 403–422.
20.
GunastiK.BaskinE. (2018). Is a $200 Nordstrom gift card worth more or less than a $200 Gap gift card? The asymmetric valuations of luxury gift cards. Journal of Retailing, 94, 380–392.
21.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
22.
HigginsE. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.
23.
KeltnerD.BuswellB. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 250–270.
24.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. Guilford Press.
25.
KrishnaA.HerdK. B.AydınoğluN. Z. (2015). Wetting the bed at twenty-one: Embarrassment as a private emotion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 473–486.
26.
LaranJ. (2010). Goal management in sequential choices: Consumer choices for others are more indulgent than personal choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 304–314.
27.
LearyM. R. (2019). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Routledge.
28.
LennoxR. D.WolfeR. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349–1364.
29.
LevinI. P.JohnsonR. D. (1984). Estimating price-quality tradeoffs using comparative judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 593–600.
30.
LibermanN.TropeY. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.
31.
LiuP. J.DallasS. K.FitzsimonsG. J. (2019). A framework for understanding consumer choices for others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 407–434.
32.
LiuP. J.McFerranB.HawsK. L. (2020). Mindful matching: Ordinal versus nominal attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 57, 134–155.
33.
LiuY.PolmanE.LiuY.JiaoJ. (2018). Choosing for others and its relation to information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147, 65–75.
34.
LoweM. L.HawsK. L. (2014). (Im)moral support: The social outcomes of parallel self-control decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 489–505.
35.
LowreyT. M.OtnesC. C.RuthJ. A. (2004). Social influences on dyadic giving over time: A taxonomy from the giver’s perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 547–558.
36.
LuJ.XieX.XuJ. (2013). Desirability or feasibility: Self-other decision-making differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 144–155.
37.
MandelN. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 30–40.
38.
MillerR. S. (1996). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life. Guilford Press.
39.
MinK. E.LiuP. J.KimS. (2018). Sharing extraordinary experiences fosters feelings of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 107–121.
40.
MogilnerC.AakerJ. L.PenningtonG. L. (2008). Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 670–681.
41.
PenningtonG. L.RoeseN. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563–576.
42.
PhamM. T. (2013). The seven sins of consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 411–423.
43.
PolmanE. (2012). Effects of self-other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 980–993.
44.
PolmanE.WuK. (2020). Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 77, 102184.
45.
ProninE.LinD. Y.RossL. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.
46.
ProninE.OlivolaC. Y.KennedyK. A. (2008). Doing unto future selves as you would do unto others: Psychological distance and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 224–236.
47.
RatnerR. K.KahnB. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246–257.
48.
RimS.MinK. E.LiuP. J.ChartrandT. L.TropeY. (2019). The gift of psychological closeness: How feasible versus desirable gifts reduce psychological distance to the giver. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 360–371.
49.
RuessmannJ. K.TopolinskiS. (2020). Economic decisions for others are more favorable for close than distant clients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46, 393–407.
50.
SchlenkerB. R.LearyM. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669.
51.
SethiR. (2000). New product quality and product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–14.
52.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
53.
SimpsonJ. A.GriskeviciusV.RothmanA. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 304–314.
54.
SnyderM. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.
55.
SpillerS. A.BelogolovaL. (2017). On consumer beliefs about quality and taste. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 970–991.
56.
SpillerS. A.FitzsimonsG.LynchJ.McClellandG. (2012). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 277–288.
57.
SteffelM.LeBoeufR. A. (2014). Overindividuation in gift giving: Shopping for multiple recipients leads givers to choose unique but less preferred gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1167–1180.
58.
StilleyK. M.InmanJ. J.WakefieldK. L. (2010). Planning to make unplanned purchases? The role of in-store slack in budget deviation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 264–278.
59.
TangneyJ. P. (1999). The self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride. In DalgleishT.PowerM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 541–568). Wiley.
60.
TeigenK. H.OlsenM. V. G.SolåsO. E. (2005). Giver–receiver asymmetries in gift preferences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 125–144.
61.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
62.
TuckerD. M. (1991). The decline of thrift in America: Our cultural shift from saving to spending. Greenwood.
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.
