Jump to content

Shared consumption

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shared consumption (also joint consumption, dyadic consumption) is a type of group consumption where people in a group are interacting one with another, with joint activity involving interdependence (a typical example is the family meal). Joint activity usually involves people that know each other (friends, family, colleagues), although shared consumption is possible between strangers (e.g., at a networking event). The term does not cover a group merely sharing the environment without significant interaction (like strangers in a restaurant) or using online virtual participation.[1]

Types

[edit]

Shared consumption is distinct from related group consumption types:

  • collaborative consumption, a model emphasizing resource sharing and community-based access to goods or services. While collaborative consumption focuses on practical benefits like cost savings and sustainability, shared consumption highlights the social and emotional dimensions of participating in activities with others;
  • collective consumption of goods that are produced and consumed by society on a large scale (mostly non-rivalrous public goods, like roads, schools, police).[2]

The idea of joint consumption was adapted and applied at the micro-level of household economics In this context, joint consumption refers to household public goods. These are goods and services consumed jointly by members of the household, such as housing (e.g., heating, lighting), shared family assets, the "joint time consumption" of leisure, or consumption of utility of the couple's children. This application is conceptually consistent with the pure economic definition. The "complementarities in consumption" are seen as a primary source of the marital surplus, or the economic gains from marriage.[3]

Emotional intensity and satiation

[edit]

Social psychology studies show shared experience tend to amplify emotional responses. Individuals watching a thrilling movie or engaging in a high-energy concert with friends are more likely to feel heightened emotions than if they were alone.[4] This is a phenomenon known as "social amplification."[5]

In addition to social amplification, shared experiences can also lead to faster emotional satiation, which is called the "collective satiation effect."[6] Physiological studies using EEG[clarification needed] also show that shared experiences shift attention to more emotional aspects of stimuli.[7] This dynamic can influence both consumer preferences and retrospective enjoyment. Recalling shared experiences can be more satisfying when consumers' emotional reactions match others.[8]

Another concept, consumption sacrifice, looks at how willing a partner may be at incurring a cost in terms of money, time, or preferences. These sacrifices can affect the emotional dynamics of shared consumption by enhancing relational bonds. When an individual sacrifices their dining choice to prioritize a partner's preference, the resulting emotions come from the activity as well as from the perceived care and commitment from their sacrifice.[9] In shared consumption sacrifices serve as relational signals, encouraging emotional closeness. This complements other findings, claiming sacrifices in relationships enhance emotional experiences by fostering a sense of shared identity and mutual support.[10]

Motivations

[edit]

Studies show that people tend to anticipate greater enjoyment when they can share experiences with friends or family.[11] Consumers show less interest in solo leisure activities.[12] A specific study shows that men ("agency-oriented consumers") tend to spend more when shopping with friends, while women ("communion-oriented consumers") often spend less in similar contexts.[13][14]

Another study found that consumers' indulgence or restraint in a shared setting matches the behavior of companions, leading to co-indulgence or co-abstinence.[15][16]

One study poses a framework that emphasize two dimensions: the chooser's social focus (relationship vs. recipient-oriented) and the consideration of consumption preferences (highlighting a recipient's preferences vs. balancing them with the chooser's preferences).[17] In cases where there is social relationships influence decision-making, this framework applies well to shared consumption contexts.[18]

Social influence appears when needing to send appropriate relational signals through choice making. Gift-giving is motivated by the desire to convey closeness and understanding. In shared consumption situations, like choosing a restaurant or movie in a group, individuals may prioritize options that they believe complement others' preferences to strengthen the group dynamic.[19][20]

In consumption settings consumers can be motivated to compromise their own preferences with their companions' preferences. Individuals with an interdependent self-construal are more likely to accommodate others' preferences. Others with an independent self-construal might assert their own choices unless strong social cues dictate otherwise.[21][22][23]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Liu & Kwon 2023.
  2. ^ Campbell 2003, p. 203.
  3. ^ Mansour & McKinnish 2014.
  4. ^ Boothby, Erica J.; Clark, Margaret S.; Bargh, John A. (2014). "Shared Experiences Are Amplified". Psychological Science. 25 (12): 2209–2216. doi:10.1177/0956797614551162. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 25274583.
  5. ^ Raghunathan, Rajagopal; Corfman, Kim (2006). "Is Happiness Shared Doubled and Sadness Shared Halved? Social Influence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences". Journal of Marketing Research. 43 (3): 386–394. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.386. ISSN 0022-2437.
  6. ^ Bhargave, Rajesh P.; Montgomery, Nicole Votolato; Redden, Joseph P. (2018). "Collective satiation: How coexperience accelerates a decline in hedonic judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 114 (4): 529–546. doi:10.1037/pspa0000099. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 29620400.
  7. ^ Pozharliev, Rumen; Verbeke, Willem J.M.I.; Van Strien, Jan W.; Bagozzi, Richard 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. doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0560. ISSN 0022-2437.
  8. ^ Ramanathan, Suresh; McGill, Ann 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. doi:10.1086/520074. ISSN 0093-5301.
  9. ^ Garcia-Rada, Ximena; Kim, Tami; Liu, Peggy J. (2024-01-07). "Consumption sacrifice". Journal of Consumer Psychology. 35: 61–80. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1404. ISSN 1057-7408.
  10. ^ Braithwaite, Scott; Holt-Lunstad, Julianne (2017-02-01). "Romantic relationships and mental health". Current Opinion in Psychology. Relationships and stress. 13: 120–125. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.001. ISSN 2352-250X. PMID 28813281.
  11. ^ Caprariello, Peter A.; Reis, Harry 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. doi:10.1037/a0030953. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 23276272.
  12. ^ Ratner, Rebecca K.; Hamilton, Rebecca W. (2015-05-28). "Inhibited from Bowling Alone". Journal of Consumer Research. 42 (2): 266–283. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv012. ISSN 0093-5301.
  13. ^ Kurt, Didem; Inman, J. Jeffrey; Argo, Jennifer 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. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.4.741. ISSN 0022-2437.
  14. ^ Christensen, Karen, ed. (2003). Encyclopedia of community: from the village to the virtual world. A sage reference publication. Thousand Oaks: Berkshire. ISBN 978-0-7619-2598-9.
  15. ^ Lowe, Michael L.; Haws, Kelly L. (2014). "(Im)moral Support: The Social Outcomes of Parallel Self-Control Decisions". Journal of Consumer Research. 41 (2): 489–505. doi:10.1086/676688. ISSN 0093-5301.
  16. ^ Ariely, Dan; Levav, Jonathan (2000). "Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed". Journal of Consumer Research. 27 (3): 279–290. doi:10.1086/317585.
  17. ^ Liu, Peggy J; Dallas, Steven K; Fitzsimons, Gavan J (2019-03-08). "A Framework for Understanding Consumer Choices for Others". Journal of Consumer Research. 46 (3): 407–434. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz009. ISSN 0093-5301.
  18. ^ Dzhogleva, Hristina; Lamberton, Cait Poynor (2014-08-01). "Should Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-Control Decisions in Dyads". Journal of Consumer Research. 41 (2): 361–380. doi:10.1086/676599. ISSN 0093-5301.
  19. ^ Huang, Li; Gino, Francesca; Galinsky, Adam D. (2015-11-01). "The highest form of intelligence: Sarcasm increases creativity for both expressers and recipients". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 131: 162–177. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.07.001. ISSN 0749-5978.
  20. ^ Etkin, Jordan (2016). "The Hidden Cost of Personal Quantification". Journal of Consumer Research. 42 (6): 967–984. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv095.
  21. ^ Markus, Hazel R.; Kitayama, Shinobu (1991). "Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation". Psychological Review. 98 (2): 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224. ISSN 1939-1471.
  22. ^ Liu, Peggy J; Lamberton, Cait; Bettman, James R; Fitzsimons, Gavan J (2018-06-05). "Delicate Snowflakes and Broken Bonds: A Conceptualization of Consumption-Based Offense". Journal of Consumer Research. 45 (6): 1164–1193. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy051. ISSN 0093-5301.
  23. ^ Mansour, Hani; McKinnish, Terra (25 March 2014). "Couples' time together: complementarities in production versus complementarities in consumption". Journal of Population Economics. 27 (4): 1127–1144. doi:10.1007/s00148-014-0510-3. ISSN 0933-1433. PMC 6820990. PMID 31666770.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_consumption&oldid=1327731807"