Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Consumer Psychology of Individuals
- 2 Consumer Psychology of Groups and Society
- 10 Interpersonal Influences in Consumer Psychology
- 11 The Psychology of Consumer Social Hierarchy and Rank Signaling
- 12 Political Ideology and Consumer Psychology
- 13 Religion and Consumer Psychology
- 14 The Psychology of Consumer Dignity
- 15 The Psychology of Shared Consumption
- 16 The Psychology of Access-Based Consumption
- 17 Word-of-Mouth and Consumer Psychology
- 18 Consumer Culture
- 3 Methods for Understanding Consumer Psychology
- Index
- References
15 - The Psychology of Shared Consumption
from 2 - Consumer Psychology of Groups and Society
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 March 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Consumer Psychology of Individuals
- 2 Consumer Psychology of Groups and Society
- 10 Interpersonal Influences in Consumer Psychology
- 11 The Psychology of Consumer Social Hierarchy and Rank Signaling
- 12 Political Ideology and Consumer Psychology
- 13 Religion and Consumer Psychology
- 14 The Psychology of Consumer Dignity
- 15 The Psychology of Shared Consumption
- 16 The Psychology of Access-Based Consumption
- 17 Word-of-Mouth and Consumer Psychology
- 18 Consumer Culture
- 3 Methods for Understanding Consumer Psychology
- Index
- References
Summary
People often engage in shared consumption experiences with other people, including romantic partners, friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, and acquaintances. Although the field of consumer psychology has traditionally focused on the perspective of an individual consumer, researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance and relevance of studying shared consumption (also known as joint consumption, dyadic consumption, or group consumption). In this chapter, we first discuss common methodological paradigms for studying shared consumption, given that studying shared consumption poses unique methodological challenges relative to studying solitary consumption. We then discuss prior research on shared consumption, organizing our review around the potential benefits and potential costs involved in shared consumption as compared to solitary consumption. Finally, we delineate four main areas for future research on shared consumption that we view as particularly promising.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology , pp. 416 - 444Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Andersen, S. M., & Przybylinski, E. (2018). Shared reality in interpersonal relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 42–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). The influence of mere social presence in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Bassili, J. N. (2003). The minority slowness effect: Subtle inhibitions in the expression of views not shared by others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhargave, R., & Montgomery, N. V. (2013). The social context of temporal sequences: Why first impressions shape shared experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 501–517.Google Scholar
Bhargave, R. P., Montgomery, N. V., & Redden, J. P. (2018). Collective satiation: How coexperience accelerates a decline in hedonic judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 529–546.Google Scholar
Boothby, E. J., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2014). Shared experiences are amplified. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2209–2216.Google Scholar
Boothby, E. J., Smith, L. K., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2016). Psychological distance moderates the amplification of shared experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1431–1444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boothby, E. J., Smith, L. K., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2017). The world looks better together: How close others enhance our visual experiences. Personal Relationships, 24(3), 694–714.Google Scholar
Brick, D. J., Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2018). Coke vs. Pepsi: Brand compatibility, relationship power, and life satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 991–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brick, D. J., Zhou, L., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2022). Better to decide together: Shared consumer decision making, perceived power, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(3), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 206–215.Google Scholar
Caprariello, P. A., & Reis, H. T. (2013). To do, to have, or to share? Valuing experiences over material possessions depends on the involvement of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavanaugh, L. A. (2016). Consumer behavior in close relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 101–106.Google Scholar
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81–84.Google Scholar
Dzhogleva, H., & Lamberton, C. P. (2014). Should birds of a feather flock together? Understanding self-control decisions in dyads. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 361–380.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, G. M., Houston, M. B., Jiang, B., Lamberton, C., Rindfleisch, A., & Zervas, G. (2019). Marketing in the sharing economy. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 5–27.Google Scholar
Epp, A. M., Schau, H. J., & Price, L. L. (2014). The role of brands and mediating technologies in assembling long-distance family practices. Journal of Marketing, 78(3), 81–101.Google Scholar
Etkin, J. (2016). Choosing variety for joint consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(6), 1019–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. J., Grégoire, Y., & Murray, K. B. (2011). The limited effects of power on satisfaction with joint consumption decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 277–289.Google Scholar
Garbinsky, E. N., & Gladstone, J. J. (2019). The consumption consequences of couples pooling finances. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(3), 353–369.Google Scholar
Garcia-Rada, X., Anik, L., & Ariely, D. (2019). Consuming together (versus separately) makes the heart grow fonder. Marketing Letters, 30(1), 27–43.Google Scholar
Garcia-Rada, X., & Kim, T. (2021). Shared time scarcity and the pursuit of extraordinary experiences. Psychological Science, 32(12), 1871–1883.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Guerin, B. (1986). Mere presence effects in humans: A review. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(1), 38–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, L., Krishna, A., & McFerran, B. (2019). Outsourcing responsibility for indulgent food consumption to prevent negative affect. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4(2), 136–146.Google Scholar
Haj-Mohamadi, P., Fles, E. H., & Shteynberg, G. (2018). When can shared attention increase affiliation? On the bonding effects of co-experienced belief affirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75(March 2018), 103–106.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R., Ferraro, R., Haws, K. L., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2021). Traveling with companions: The social customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 68–92.Google Scholar
Hamilton, R. W. (2021). Shared Consumption Experiences. Impact at JMR, www.ama.org/shared-consumption-experiences-2/Google Scholar
Hasford, J., Kidwell, B., & Lopez-Kidwell, V. (2018). Happy wife, happy life: Food choices in romantic relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1238–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman, J. J., Campbell, M. C., Kirmani, A., & Price, L. L. (2018). Our vision for the Journal of Consumer Research: It’s all about the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 955–959.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovacheva, A., & Lamberton, C. (2018). Whose experience is it, anyway? Psychological ownership and enjoyment of shared experiences. In Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (Eds.). Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior (pp. 195–210). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Kumar, A., & Gilovich, T. (2015). Some “thing” to talk about? Differential story utility from experiential and material purchases. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1320–1331.Google Scholar
Kurt, D., Inman, J. J., & Argo, J. J. (2011). The influence of friends on consumer spending: The role of agency–communion orientation and self-monitoring. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 741–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, T. A., & Liu, P. J. (2021). Shared-solitary combined experiences: The desire for some solitary time in social consumption experiences. In Bradford, T. W., Keinan, A., & Thomson, M. (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 49 (pp. 593–598). Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.Google Scholar
Liu, P. J. (2022). Frequency versus intensity: How thinking of a frequent consumption indulgence as social versus solitary affects preferences for how to cut back. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(3), 497–516.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Liu, P. J., Dallas, S. K., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2019). A framework for understanding consumer choices for others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 407–434.Google Scholar
Liu, P. J., & Kwon, T. A. (2022). Predicting others’ social interaction preferences: What to do, for how long, and how often. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 139–145.Google Scholar
Liu, P. J., Lamberton, C., Bettman, J. R., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2019). Delicate snowflakes and broken bonds: A conceptualization of consumption-based offense. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(6), 1164–1193.Google Scholar
Liu, P. J., McFerran, B., & Haws, K. L. (2020). Mindful matching: Ordinal versus nominal attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 134–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, P. J., & Min, K. E. (2020). Where do you want to go for dinner? A preference expression asymmetry in joint consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(6), 1037–1054.Google Scholar
Lorenz, T., Griffith, E., & Isaac, M. (2021). We live in Zoom now. New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/style/zoom-parties-coronavirus-memes.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lowe, M., Nikolova, H., Miller, C. J., & Dommer, S. L. (2019). Ceding and succeeding: How the altruistic can benefit from the selfish in joint decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(4), 652–661.Google Scholar
Lowe, M. L., & Haws, K. L. (2014). (Im)moral support: The social outcomes of parallel self-control decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 489–505.Google Scholar
Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., et al. (2021). The future of work after COVID-19. McKinsey Global Institute, www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19Google Scholar
McFerran, B., & Argo, J. J. (2014). The entourage effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 871–884.Google Scholar
Min, K. E., Liu, P. J., & Kim, S. (2018). Sharing extraordinary experiences fosters feelings of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(1), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morales, A. C., Amir, O., & Lee, L. (2017). Keeping it real in experimental research-understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 465–476.Google Scholar
Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyond the “like” button: The impact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social media settings. Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 105–120.Google Scholar
Nikolova, H., & Lamberton, C. (2016). Men and the middle: Gender differences in dyadic compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 355–371.Google Scholar
Nikolova, H., Lamberton, C., & Coleman, N. V. (2018). Stranger danger: When and why consumer dyads behave less ethically than individuals. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 90–108.Google Scholar
Nikolova, H., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2022). We succeeded together, now what: Relationship power and sequential decisions in couples’ joint goal pursuits. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(2), 271–289.Google Scholar
Pozharliev, R., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Van Strien, J. W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). Merely being with you increases my attention to luxury products: Using EEG to understand consumers’ emotional experience with luxury branded products. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 546–558.Google Scholar
Raghunathan, R., & Corfman, K. (2006). Is happiness shared doubled and sadness shared halved? Social influence on enjoyment of hedonic experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 386–394.Google Scholar
Ramanathan, S., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Consuming with others: Social influences on moment-to-moment and retrospective evaluations of an experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 506–524.Google Scholar
Ratner, R. K., & Hamilton, R. W. (2015). Inhibited from bowling alone. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 266–283.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., O’Keefe, S. D., & Lane, R. D. (2017). Fun is more fun when others are involved. Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 547–557.Google Scholar
Ren, D., Stavrova, O., & Loh, W. W. (2022). Nonlinear effect of social interaction quantity on psychological well-being: Diminishing returns or inverted U? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(6), 1056–1074.Google Scholar
Rossignac-Milon, M., Bolger, N., Zee, K. S., Boothby, E. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2021). Merged minds: Generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 882–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossignac-Milon, M., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). Epistemic companions: Shared reality development in close relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 66–71.Google Scholar
Shteynberg, G. (2015). Shared attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 579–590.Google Scholar
Shteynberg, G., Hirsh, J. B., Apfelbaum, E. P., Larsen, J. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Roese, N. J. (2014). Feeling more together: Group attention intensifies emotion. Emotion, 14(6), 1102–1114.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 304–314.Google Scholar
Steffel, M., & Williams, E. F. (2018). Delegating decisions: Recruiting others to make choices we might regret. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1015–1032.Google Scholar
Sun, J., Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2020). Is well-being associated with the quantity and quality of social interactions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(6), 1478–1496.Google Scholar
Thomas, T. C., Epp, A. M., & Price, L. L. (2020). Journeying together: Aligning retailer and service provider roles with collective consumer practices. Journal of Retailing, 96(1), 9–24.Google Scholar
Tu, Y., Shaw, A., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The friendly taking effect: How interpersonal closeness leads to seemingly selfish yet jointly maximizing choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 669–687.Google Scholar
Tu, Y., Yang, Y., & Fishbach, A. (2017). Friends with experiential benefits: The experience is more novel when experienced with others. In Gneezy, A., Griskevicius, V., & Williams, P. (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 45 (pp. 181–185). Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
vanDellen, M. R., & Baker, E. (2011). Implicit delegation of responsibility: Joint self-control in close relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(3), 277–283.Google Scholar
Wight, K. G., Liu, P. J., Bettman, J. R., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2022). Social relationships and consumer behavior. In Kahle, L. R., Lowrey, T. M., & Huber, J. (Eds.). APA Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 351–372). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2017). A recipe for friendship: Similar food consumption promotes trust and cooperation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2019). Shared plates, shared minds: Consuming from a shared plate promotes cooperation. Psychological Science, 30(4), 541–552.Google Scholar
Wu, E. C., Moore, S. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2019). Wine for the table: Self-construal, group size, and choice for self and others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(3), 508–527.Google Scholar
Wu, Y., Hamilton, R. W., Kim, N. Y. J., & Ratner, R. K. (2021). Navigating shared consumption experiences: Clarity about a partner’s interests increases enjoyment. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(3), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar