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

Abstract

Consumers frequently make choices and purchase products for other people (e.g., buying a gift for a friend). While extant research identified many factors that influence how choices for others are made, much of this literature focused on product-specific factors or motivations pertaining to the process of exchange to understand choice-for-others phenomena. Little is known about the influence of consumer-relevant factors on choices made for other people. In the current research, we examine how choices for others are influenced by consumers' own salient personal goals (e.g., to get fit, to succeed professionally). We find that consumers choose goal-inconsistent options for others to enhance their own perception of progress toward their salient goal. This effect is most robust when a salient goal is held at an individual (vs. group) level and when the choice-forother situation exhibits a relationship (vs. recipient) focus. Results of seven experiments support these claims.

Effects of institutions on the eco-brand orientation of millennial consumers: a social cognitive perspective

“…Previous studies have noted the positive effects of salient goals (e.g. intentional and activated eco-behaviour goals) on consumer choices, inclinations, decisions and actions (Bryksina, 2020;Becker et al, 2020), supporting the logic of goal-behaviour congruence (Bryksina, 2020;Emekci, 2019). Hence, we posit in this study that:…”

Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the deployment of scales

“…One common manner by which modifications to scale dimensionality occurs is via the use of a dimensional subset of an original scale, typically one or a few dimensions from a multidimensional measure (this was the most common form of scope change in our JCP review and occurred most frequently with validated scale usage). For instance, from our JCP review Farmer et al (2021) use the intolerance of ambiguity dimension of Webster and Kruglanski's (1994) need for a cognitive closure scale as their mediator in assessing how political ideology affects the response to ambiguity, whereas three different articles (Bryksina, 2020; Granulo et al, 2021; Li et al, 2021) only use the 11‐item counter‐conformity subscale of the need for uniqueness scale (Tian et al, 2001). In these cases, the authors argue reasonably that a particular subdimension was most relevant to their conceptualization, resulting in no assessment of the other dimensions.…”

When facilitating a group member’s (versus one’s own) progress increases motivation in group-level goal pursuit.

“…Here we show that actions that facilitate the progress of another person (i.e., a group member) are more motivating in pursuit of a group-level goal than actions that facilitate one's own progress. This differs from what occurs in individual-level goals, where actions that facilitate one's own progress are motivating (Bryksina, 2020;Etkin & Laran, 2019;Kopetz et al, 2012;van Osselaer et al, 2005;van Osselaer & Janiszewski, 2012), and actions that facilitate the progress of another person can be demotivating (Bryksina, 2020). The second contribution of this research is to the literature on perceived goal progress as the driver of motivation.…”

“…Motivation-a process that explains peoples' persistence, intensity, and direction of goal-consistent actions (Geen, 1995;Larson, 2010)can be influenced by several factors. In general, individuals are motivated to undertake actions that generate the most impact/progress toward their salient goal (Bryksina, 2020;Etkin & Laran, 2019;Kopetz et al, 2012;van Osselaer et al, 2005;van Osselaer & Janiszewski, 2012), and this holds for both individual-and grouplevel goals (e.g., Karau & Williams, 1993;Kerr, 1996). For example, people are more motivated to give to charity if they think that their actions are making greater impact/progress toward the charitable goal (Cryder et al, 2013).…”