Research

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: One of the main reasons consumers host gatherings is to interact and bond with their friends and family; yet, taking on the role of host may get in the way of the very connection they seek. Across seven studies examining both consequential and recalled choices, we identify an important negative consequence of hosting a gathering: hosts feel like they miss out on the gatherings they orchestrate. We demonstrate that, rather than reflecting busyness or time spent away from guests, this sense of missing out occurs because hosts need to divide their attention and thus are less psychologically engaged in interacting with the group than guests are. We show that, although having a co-host does not relieve this burden, delegating hosting tasks can serve as a remedy for this hosting dilemma: when hosts delegate their tasks to someone else, they feel less like they are missing out and demonstrate a stronger interest in hosting again. The findings contribute to our understanding of consumers’ experiences as hosts and guests when sharing experiences with others, and how companies can help hosts have a better hosting experience.

Abstract: People often make trade-offs between new and unfamiliar experiences and more familiar and tried-and-true experiences. Across four studies, we show that people prefer novel options when they will experience them with others versus alone. The preference for novelty in social settings is driven by mitigation of the potential downsides of trying new things. The presence of others reduces the perceived downsides associated with new experiences and leads people to prefer novel experiences when they will be shared with others. This preference for novelty is amplified when the option is new to self but familiar to the consumption partner, and mitigated when experience is shared with a distant other.

Abstract: Gift givers often find themselves torn between gifts that are fun but frivolous and gifts that are more useful but less pleasurable. Across six studies, including real-world data from Amazon wish lists, actual gift card sales, and real wedding gift registries, we show that givers favor gifts that are hedonic; however, recipients frequently desire and request utilitarian gifts. This asymmetry is observed even when recipients explicitly request utilitarian gifts. Givers are miscalibrated because of their temporal focus: they focus on choosing a “good” gift for the moment they give the gift, whereas recipients focus on the gift’s long-term value while they own it. Shifting givers’ focus away from the proximal moment of exchange to the long-term can help them match recipients’ preferences for utilitarian gifts; givers also choose better calibrated gifts when they can give a utilitarian gift with a hedonic feature, or are choosing a gift for an occasion when norms call for a more utilitarian option. This work suggests that gift givers should be less concerned about giving utilitarian gifts, as recipients appreciate receiving them more than givers expect. These findings have implications for how to market gift items and improve satisfaction with the gifts that people exchange.

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 = 1397), 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 abstaining from 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 motivate people to keep on giving.

Abstract: Consumers often donate shoddy, or subpar, goods. We find that consumers make these donations because the alternative—throwing goods away—feels wasteful. We further show that feeling wasteful presents consumers with a want/should dilemma: consumers want to donate subpar goods while sometimes understanding they should just throw them away instead.

Abstract: In initial studies, we find that consumers believe diseases that people commonly struggle with are perceived to be less severe than the diseases that are uncommon. The findings suggest that lay beliefs about the commonness of diseases can lead to common diseases receiving less attention and resources despite their widespread impact.