Marketing Letters

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 27–43 | Cite as

Consuming together (versus separately) makes the heart grow fonder

  • Ximena Garcia-RadaEmail author
  • Lalin Anik
  • Dan Ariely


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.


Decision-making Shared consumption Close relationships Conflicting preferences 



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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1981). Bargaining: power, tactics and outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blood, R. O., Jr., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: the dynamics of married living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavanaugh, L. A. (2016). Consumer behavior in close relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi, J., & Fishbach, A. (2011). Choice as an end versus a means. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 544–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, H. L. (1976). Decision making within the household. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hempel, D. J. (1974). Family buying decisions: a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park, C. W. (1982). Joint decisions in home purchasing: a muddling-through process. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Polman, E. (2012). Self–other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1978). Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wertenbroch, K., Dhar, R., & Khan, U. (2005). A behavioral decision theory perspective on hedonic and utilitarian choice. In: Inside Consumption. Routledge, pp 166–187.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Business SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.University of Virginia’s Darden School of BusinessCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations