Research

Abstract: People often choose between new, unfamiliar experiences and familiar, tried-and-true experiences. This research demonstrates that, when people share an experience with someone else, they are more likely to choose a novel experience over a familiar one than when they have an experience alone. One key reason why this effect occurs: new experiences involve unknowns and uncertainties, and having company lessens the discomfort from not knowing what to do in new situations. The fact that anticipated discomfort from situational uncertainty drives these preferences also suggests certain nuances and boundary conditions. First, when the novel experience is made to be less uncomfortable to navigate, people are more interested in trying it when they are alone. Second, some types of partners (e.g., close friends) seem better at reducing the discomfort of novel experiences than others (e.g., acquaintances). And, sharing an experience especially increases preferences for trying something new if one’s partner is familiar with the experience and can help navigate it. This research demonstrates that it is uniquely beneficial when marketers encourage customers to try new offerings with a friend, and sheds insight into when consumers are willing to try new experiences and offers practical suggestions for making novel experiences more appealing.

Abstract: Social gatherings serve an important societal function by creating opportunities for connection, and at the heart of each gathering is a host. In a time of rising loneliness, how might individuals be encouraged to host more gatherings? Hosting, as an act of giving, can be deeply meaningful and gratifying, yet the responsibility and attentional demands associated with hosting may interfere with hosts’ ability to fully participate themselves. Across seven studies examining retrospective and prospective experiences, we identify an important negative consequence of being a host: hosts feel like they miss out on the gatherings they organize more than do guests. This happens because hosts’ feelings of responsibility over their gatherings lead them to divide their attention more than guests, rather than simply because hosts spend less time on social interactions or because they know more people there and thus have more to miss out on. We also investigate how to help hosts feel more engaged while preserving the meaning from the experience. We show that sharing hosting responsibility with a co-host does not reduce the feeling one has missed out but dividing responsibility by delegating elements to someone else can make hosts feel less attentionally divided; less like they miss out without diminishing the sense of meaning; and more interested in hosting again. Our findings illuminate how social roles and their attentional requirements shape shared experiences and reveal how to help hosts get more out of these experiences and be encouraged to create more opportunities for people to gather.

Abstract: Consumers commonly host parties. Yet little is known about how hosting—that is, assuming primary responsibility for orchestrating the various elements of a party or other social gathering—uniquely shapes the choices consumers make for such shared consumption experiences. Although one might expect hosts to cater to guests’ preferences, eight studies show that hosts are more likely to choose food, music, decorations and other elements for a party that reflect their own preferences and identity over more popular options, compared to people making the same choices for a party but not in the role of host. This is driven by hosts’ greater feelings of psychological ownership over the party and subsequent desire to share something about themselves with their guests, rather than merely a sense of entitlement, and emerges regardless of whether hosts provide the location or resources for the party. Further, hosts choose self-reflective options as much for typical events as for events expressly celebrating themselves, and despite underestimating how much guests enjoy and even prefer them. The findings contribute to an understanding of choices for shared consumption and of hosting as a unique decision making context, and provide insight into how the party industry can appeal to hosts.

Abstract: Gifts are often purchased for a specific occasion, like a birthday, Valentine’s Day, or a housewarming, yet little research has examined how the nature of gifting occasions influences gift preferences. Ten studies, including analyses of real purchases from gift registries and controlled experiments with incentive-compatible gift choices, demonstrate that gift givers prefer giving utilitarian (vs. hedonic) gifts more when the gift-giving occasion marks a life transition versus when it does not mark a life transition. This occurs both when different occasions are normatively seen as more transitional (e.g., a baby shower) versus less transitional (e.g., Valentine’s Day), and when the same occasion is framed as being more (vs. less) transitional. We further show that this diverging preference occurs because transitional occasions prompt gift givers to focus on the gift recipient’s future life. Our studies also offer actionable insights for gift givers and marketers: when occasions seem more transitional, gift givers are better at choosing gifts that match recipients’ preferences for utilitarian gifts; and when a gift registry highlights the transitional nature of the occasion, givers are more likely to choose recipients’ requested utilitarian gifts.

Abstract: Exchanging gifts can bring connection and joy, but at the same time, engender stress, anxiety, and dissatisfaction. One common but underexamined approach to dealing with the negative consequences of exchanging gifts is to stop giving and receiving gifts entirely. In two studies (N = 1,332), we demonstrate that most people have at least one ongoing relationship in which they have ceased exchanging gifts, including a majority of a demographically representative sample. Further, we show that conflict due to gift giving is the most common reason why people stop exchanging gifts with a loved one. We also examine some of the consequences of giving up on gifts, revealing that the decision to stop exchanging gifts does not necessarily harm the relationship as much as people expect, and can even provide some psychological and emotional benefits. Finally, we discuss alternatives to individual gift exchanges that can potentially maintain the festive spirit of gift giving but mitigate the stress it causes, and implications for marketers on how to help reduce the burden of gift exchanges.

Abstract: Consumers often donate shoddy, or subpar, goods, creating a burden for the organizations that receive them. Why do presumably well-intentioned consumers do this? We find that consumers often donate subpar goods because they wish to avoid throwing these items away; in other words, consumers’ donations of subpar goods are frequently driven by waste aversion. We further show that the prospect of feeling wasteful presents consumers with a want versus should dilemma in this domain: consumers want to donate subpar goods to avoid feeling wasteful even while recognizing that they should dispose of these items instead. Interestingly, we find that trait waste aversion predicts consumers’ want desire to donate subpar goods, but not their should desire, directly connecting waste aversion to consumers’ intuitive preferences to give subpar goods away and avoid disposing of them. Finally, we show that nonprofits’ efforts to post lists of unacceptable items can effectively drive down subpar donations by reducing the want-should discrepancy. In sum, this research documents that consumers often donate subpar goods due to waste aversion instead of due to a desire to help others, and further connects waste aversion to the literature on consumers’ want versus should desires.

Abstract: Getting people to try new products is important yet challenging for marketers. We propose that using nontraditional forms of money, such as reward points and gift cards, encourages people to try something they have not tried before. Across nine preregistered studies, participants were more likely to choose a new option over a familiar option when using nontraditional forms of money than when spending their own money. This effect is robust across different purchase categories, including utilitarian products and experiential purchases, and across different kinds of nontraditional money, including reward points, store credits, and credit card cashback. New options feel risky, but using nontraditional forms of money can lessen the impact of a bad outcome, providing “emotional insurance,” which increases people’s preference for novelty. We show two ways to provide emotional insurance and make consumers more willing to try new products even when they are not using nontraditional forms of money: offering an easy return policy that makes refunds logistically easier, and providing an alternative product if customers are dissatisfied with their initial choice. This research shows how payment methods can shape consumers’ willingness to try new products and suggests practical interventions that encourage exploration.