Ceding and Succeeding: How the Altruistic Can Benefit from the Selfish in Joint Decisions

Abstract

We examine how the interplay of two partners’ interpersonal orientations (selfish vs. altruistic) in a decision‐making dyad impacts the extent to which the joint decision matches each partners’ individual a priori preferences. Two experiments, in which we manipulate and measure interpersonal orientations, as well as examine real consumption decisions, demonstrate the benefit of mismatching interpersonal orientations (selfish‐altruistic) in dyadic decisions. Specifically, altruistic and selfish consumers reach joint decisions that better reflect their individual preferences when working with a partner who has the opposite interpersonal orientation (heterogeneous dyad) versus a matching one (homogeneous dyad). Initial evidence suggests that this effect occurs because homogeneous dyads are more prone to engage in negotiation (communication that involves departure from one's initial position to a mutually serving position) than heterogeneous dyads. This leads homogeneous dyads to focus more on equally preferred options than on their own most preferred options, which pushes them further down both partners’ preferences lists. This research contributes to the literature on joint decision making and has important implications for consumer well‐being.

When and Why Choices for Others Diverge from Consumers' Own Salient Goals

“…Joint goal pursuit is characterized by situations whereby multiple individuals work toward a common group‐level goal (Fishbach & Tu, 2016; Weingart & Weldon, 1991). Joint decision making assumes input from all parties to arrive at a decision outcome (Greenhalgh & Chapman, 1995; Lowe et al., 2019). While some joint‐consumption situations might involve joint goal pursuit and/or joint decision making, in the current research we focused on situations in which a consumer is unilaterally making a choice for another person, and the consumer will join the recipient in consuming the chosen option—this conceptualization is consistent with that of Liu et al (2019).…”

“…We predicted and found in Study 7 that participants chose a goal-inconsistent product for another person in the joint-consumption condition-that is, a condition in which participants read that they would engage in the chosen activity together with their friend. It is important to clarify how joint consumption conceptualized here is different from other related consumption contexts: joint decision making (e.g., Greenhalgh & Chapman, 1995;Lowe, Nikolova, Miller, & Dommer, 2019) and joint goal pursuit (e.g., Fishbach & Tu, 2016). Joint goal pursuit is characterized by situations whereby multiple individuals work toward a common group-level goal (Fishbach & Tu, 2016;Weingart & Weldon, 1991).…”

Traveling with Companions: The Social Customer Journey

“…These interesting dynamics have led to research on how evaluation is affected by the relative standing of individuals within the DMU. When members within a DMU differ in their preferences, the weight that each member’s preferences receive is based on influence within the DMU (Lowe et al 2019). Garbinsky and Gladstone (2019) found that couples who pooled finances in a joint bank account were more likely to choose utilitarian products when spending from that joint account than when spending from a separate account, due to the need to justify the decision.…”

Dark triad-consumer behavior relationship: the mediating role of consumer self-confidence and aggressive interpersonal orientation

“…The contributions of this research are fourfold. First, Lowe et al (2019) called for future research to move beyond personal consumer preference and extend research toward interpersonal orientation. This study contributes toward DT and consumer literature by uncovering the underlying mechanisms influencing the behavior of DT consumers.…”