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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
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.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1981). Bargaining: power, tactics and outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
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.
Blood, R. O., Jr., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: the dynamics of married living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
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.
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.
Cavanaugh, L. A. (2016). Consumer behavior in close relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 101–106.
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.
Choi, J., & Fishbach, A. (2011). Choice as an end versus a means. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 544–554.
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.
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.
Davis, H. L. (1976). Decision making within the household. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 241–260.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
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.
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.
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.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hempel, D. J. (1974). Family buying decisions: a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 295–302.
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334–339.
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.
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.
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.
Park, C. W. (1982). Joint decisions in home purchasing: a muddling-through process. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 151–162.
Polman, E. (2012). Self–other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(2), 141–150.
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.
Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 304–314.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1978). Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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
- Shared consumption
- Close relationships
- Conflicting preferences