Frequency Versus Intensity: How Thinking of a Frequent Consumption Indulgence as Social Versus Solitary Affects Preferences for How to Cut Back

Abstract

Many consumers engage in frequent consumption indulgences. Because such indulgences accumulate resource costs (e.g., money, calories), consumers are often prompted to cut back, posing questions for how to design cutback programs with consumer appeal. This research distinguishes between frequent indulgences that consumers think of as social (vs. solitary), demonstrating that thinking of an indulgence as social (vs. solitary) decreases preferences to cut “frequency” (how often the indulgence occasion occurs) and increases preferences to cut “intensity” (choosing a within-category substitute that involves lower resource expenditure). The author explains these effects by differentiating between enjoyment from the product itself and enjoyment from aspects outside the product. Thinking of an indulgence as social (vs. solitary) heightens people’s anticipated enjoyment, particularly for aspects outside of the product, decreasing interest in cutting the number of occasions (cutting frequency) and increasing interest in cutting back on the product itself via a within-category substitute (cutting intensity). This divergence in cutback preferences for social (vs. solitary) experiences is thus eliminated (1) when consumers think of social experiences with distant (vs. close) others, which involve lower enjoyment outside of the product, or (2) when solitary experiences primarily involve heightened enjoyment for aspects outside of the product.

Keywords

social solitary indulgence frequency intensity substitution enjoyment

If you’re wasting $5 a day on little things like a latte at Starbucks or a muffin, you can become very rich if you can cut back on that.

—Bach (2002); Bartels and Urminsky (2015, p. 1469)

Calories add up.… By bundling eating of the current [ice cream] cone with eating of future cones, the consumer may view the costs of the cone not as 250 calories, but as an extra 250 calories a day for the foreseeable future, with obesity as the inevitable outcome.

—Hoch and Loewenstein (1991, pp. 502–03)

Many consumers engage in frequent consumption indulgences, whether a daily latte or a weekly pizza night. Despite their popularity, because such indulgences accumulate resource costs (e.g., money, calories) over time, consumers are often prompted to, need to, or want to cut back. Indeed, popular advice abounds on the importance of cutting back on frequent indulgences. For instance, consumers have been advised that a daily latte hurts one's wallet by compounding a small purchase over many occasions (e.g., “the latte factor”; Bach and Mann 2019) or that a daily cookie or serving of ice cream leads to weight gain over time (e.g., “calories add up”; Hoch and Loewenstein 1991; Nestle 2010). Indeed, popular financial budgeting and calorie tracking websites and apps can prompt consumers to observe their consumption habits over time, enabling them to see how small changes made on a repeated basis can affect overall budgets and goals. Further, in a pilot survey of 101 U.S. consumers conducted right after the New Year, the majority reported having New Year's resolutions (n = 78 [77.2%]); of these 78 consumers with New Year's resolutions, 50.0% reported a resolution to cut back on their monetary spending on things that they consider indulgences, and 65.4% reported a resolution to cut back on their calories for foods that they consider indulgences (for the pilot survey details, see the Web Appendix). The importance and relevance of cutting back on indulgences thus raises the question: When and why do consumers find particular approaches to cutting back more or less appealing? The answer to this question may provide both theoretical insights to the literature streams on consumer goal pursuit and resource use, as well as practical insights relevant to improving consumer welfare.

This research proposes a key distinction between frequent indulgences that consumers think of as social (i.e., as an activity one engages in primarily with friends and family) versus as solitary (i.e., as an activity one engages in primarily on one's own). Whereas this distinction has primarily been studied previously in consumption domains with respect to how it affects consumption enjoyment (for literature tables, see the Web Appendix), I examine how this distinction affects consumers’ preferences for how to cut back on consumption. In particular, I examine how the distinction between social and solitary consumption affects interest in two ways that consumers could cut back on resource expenditure for frequent indulgences: decreasing “frequency” (i.e., reducing how often the indulgence occasion occurs) and decreasing “intensity” (i.e., choosing a within-category substitute that involves lower resource expenditure). I examine these two routes both because they are relevant to marketing practice and because they can be evidenced in consumers’ lives.

Indeed, both frequency and intensity routes to cutting back can be readily put into practice. As a purely illustrative example of what each route might entail, consumers who aim to cut back spending for a pricey monthly gourmet chocolate subscription box might cut back their subscription frequency or might instead switch to a cheaper monthly basic chocolate subscription box. Of course, complete avoidance of one's indulgence is also an option. However, because complete avoidance of indulgences is often not warranted in many domains (e.g., food, coffee drinks; unlike with other domains, such as harmful drugs) from a consumer welfare perspective (e.g., Cornil and Chandon 2016; Liu et al. 2015) and because marketers prefer to promote moderation over avoidance for their products, I focus on frequency and intensity routes (for further discussion of other cutback routes, including avoidance, see the “General Discussion” section).

The central proposal of this research is that thinking of a frequent indulgence as social (vs. solitary) decreases preferences to cut frequency, whereas it increases preferences to cut intensity. Moreover, I propose that these effects occur because thinking of an indulgence as social (vs. solitary) increases anticipated enjoyment particularly for aspects surrounding the consumption experience (vs. for the product itself), decreasing interest in cutting frequency and increasing interest in cutting intensity. Next, I discuss the theoretical rationale for these predictions. I then present six experiments that test my predictions, including identifying moderators consistent with the theory. Finally, I discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical implications, as well as future research opportunities that build on this framework.

Theoretical Rationale

Frequent Consumption Indulgences

Consumption indulgence in this research refers to hedonic consumption—consumption that is primarily pursued for fun and enjoyment—which costs resources from one's monetary and/or caloric budget. Examples include drinking a latte at a coffeehouse, eating a piece of chocolate in the evening, or going for a pedicure (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Khan, Dhar, and Wertenbroch 2005; Raghunathan and Corfman 2006). I examine cutting back for hedonic, rather than utilitarian, consumption because consumers are not often prompted to cut their utilitarian consumption, which is practical and easy to justify spending on (Kivetz and Simonson 2002; Kivetz and Zheng 2006; Okada 2005; see also the pilot survey in the Web Appendix). Because consumption indulgences cost resources and are also less easy to justify spending on, consumers are often prompted, need, or want to cut back, as highlighted in the opening examples. I thus examine consumers’ interest in different cutback approaches to spending less money or calories on their frequent consumption indulgence.

The other terminology component of “frequent consumption indulgences” concerns the definition of “frequent.” In the scope of this research, I define “frequent” as a repeatedly occurring experience (i.e., more than a one-time experience). The frequency of different consumption indulgences might vary across indulgences and across consumers. Empirically, I either leave the frequency unspecified to consumers (as in Experiments 1 and 2) or specify it as weekly for all consumers to control for frequency.

Social Versus Solitary Consumption

Social relationships are an important part of most peoples’ lives, and thus, most people are sensitive to social relationship cues (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Cavanaugh 2014; Liu et al. 2019; Liu and Kwon 2022; Wight et al. 2021). In the present research, I propose that thinking of a frequent consumption indulgence as a social (vs. solitary) activity affects consumers’ interest in different ways to cut back when the need or desire to cut back arises. Indeed, in everyday life, consumers engage in enjoyable consumption experiences, including consuming hedonic and indulgent products, both socially and by themselves (Bhargave and Montgomery 2013; Bhargave, Montgomery, and Redden 2018; Caprariello and Reis 2013; Ratner and Hamilton 2015). For instance, coffee shops often contain consumers both sitting with friends and by themselves (Ratner and Hamilton 2015). Thus, most peoples’ lived experiences likely allow them to bring to mind and anticipate both enjoyable social and solitary consumption experiences.

I draw on consumers’ beliefs about the main sources of anticipated enjoyment for social versus solitary indulgent activities. Prior research suggests that when engaging in an enjoyable consumption experience, involving other people can enhance the positivity of the experience (Boothby, Clark, and Bargh 2014; Caprariello and Reis 2013). For example, merely consuming a pleasant consumption product at the same time as a social companion—even in the absence of any conversation—can intensify or amplify the enjoyment of the product (Boothby, Clark, and Bargh 2014). By consuming together, people may integrate others’ experiences into their own, engage in nonverbal communication, and express positive emotional displays (Boothby, Clark, and Bargh 2014; Kraut and Johnston 1979; Ramanathan and McGill 2007). Moreover, consumers may anticipate that social consumption experiences with friends and family in particular will provide heightened enjoyment associated with aspects outside of consuming the product itself. For instance, consumers may anticipate that social consumption experiences can provide enjoyable conversation and companionship (Bastos and Brucks 2017) and thus facilitate bonding (Lowe and Haws 2014; Pinel et al. 2006; Woolley and Fishbach 2017). Building on this literature, I predict that framing a consumption indulgence as a social activity, which one thinks of engaging in with friends or family, versus a solitary activity that one does on one's own, will lower interest in cutting frequency (vs. intensity) when the need or desire to cut back arises.

Ways of Cutting Back: Cutting Frequency and Cutting Intensity

I examine two routes by which consumers could be prompted to decrease their spending on frequent consumption indulgences: cutting frequency or cutting intensity. Cutting frequency leads to spending fewer resources by decreasing how often consumers engage in the indulgent activity. For instance, a consumer may purchase a latte every other day rather than every day.

By contrast, cutting intensity leads to spending fewer resources by consuming a substitute that involves lower resource expenditure (e.g., a consumer may have a low-fat instead of a full-fat ice cream bar). Cutting intensity is defined in the present research in terms of choosing within-category (rather than cross-category) substitutes for two reasons. First, within-category substitutes are often especially salient in consumers’ consideration sets when finding substitutes for a given indulgence (Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016). Barsalou (1983) distinguished between taxonomic categories (used to classify stimuli based on shared features, such as coffee drinks or ice cream) and ad hoc categories (constructed for achieving goals, without considering shared features). Given the focus on cutting back from a particular frequent consumption indulgence, substitutes that are within-category are often more salient and preferred by consumers (Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016). Second, within-category substitutes are highly relevant to marketers who produce both the original product and within-category substitutes and to marketers who are concerned about within-category substitutes as consideration set competitors. Despite the focus herein on within-category substitutes, however, cross-category substitutes do represent another important way of cutting resource spending (Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016) and are thus discussed further in the “General Discussion” section.

At the center of my theorizing is a consideration of the relative advantages and disadvantages of cutting frequency and cutting intensity in terms of how each cutback approach affects enjoyment from different sources: enjoyment from the product itself versus enjoyment from aspects of the experience outside of the product. First, in terms of anticipated enjoyment from the product itself, cutting frequency will not compromise the enjoyment of the product itself: the product remains the same, but is experienced less frequently. Thus, each occasion of the consumption experience will continue to be at least as enjoyable with a cutting frequency approach, if not more so, given that consumers satiate and adapt to experiences (Galak and Redden 2018; Sevilla and Redden 2014) and that consumers may engage in greater positive anticipation of less frequent consumption events (Nowlis, Mandel, and McCabe 2004; Shu and Gneezy 2010). By contrast, cutting intensity means consuming a within-category substitute, which consumers anticipate being less enjoyable than the original (Arens and Hamilton 2016, 2018; Hoch and Loewenstein 1991; Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016). For instance, cutting intensity in the monetary domain often entails choosing a cheaper store brand version, which is less enjoyable than the more expensive name-brand version (Allison and Uhl 1964). Likewise, cutting intensity in the caloric domain often entails choosing a lower-fat or lower-sugar version of the product, which is less enjoyable than the original version (Liu and Haws 2020; Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006).

However, in terms of enjoyment of aspects outside of the product, cutting frequency has a major disadvantage: by its very nature, it leads to missing out on experience occasions. When a consumer's reference point is that they engage in a particular consumption indulgence at a higher frequency, lengthening the interval between consumption indulgences may activate thoughts of missing out as a loss (Kivetz and Keinan 2006). By contrast, cutting intensity does not lead to missing out on any consumption experience occasions, although the per-occasion enjoyment of the product itself will likely be lower, as discussed previously.

Summary of Predictions

I propose that for indulgences thought of as social (vs. solitary), consumers are more willing to cut back on the product itself via a less enjoyable within-category substitute (i.e., cutting intensity) but are more averse to cutting back on the number of occasions (i.e., cutting frequency). The logic is that when consumers think of an indulgence as solitary, the source of enjoyment that they focus on is the enjoyment from consuming the product itself. Thus, reducing its intensity is a considerable loss—removing much of the purpose of the indulgent consumption occasion—such that reducing its frequency is more acceptable. By contrast, when consumers think of an indulgence as social, the source of enjoyment that they focus on and anticipate being especially heightened stems from aspects besides the product, such that cutting frequency is a considerable loss. Cutting frequency removes the enjoyment of the experience surrounding the consumption. For example, if one thinks of a weekly latte as an activity with friends, then cutting back on the frequency by half would lead to missing the enjoyment of both half of the lattes and half of the social gatherings. If one instead cuts the intensity of the indulgence (e.g., by ordering a cheaper basic coffee each time), then this means only missing out on the latte's higher enjoyment while still allowing for the enjoyment outside of the product. Relatedly, consumers may even believe that the enjoyable social aspects of the experience can help compensate for or distract from the less enjoyable product.

Altogether then, the core prediction of the present research is that when indulgences are thought of as social (vs. solitary), consumers prefer to cut back on the product itself via choosing within-category substitutes (i.e., cutting intensity), but are more averse to cutting back on the number of occasions (i.e., cutting frequency). This preference occurs due to heightened concerns with maintaining enjoyment from aspects outside the product (vs. the product itself).

Overview of Experiments

Six experiments test the core effect, process, and theory-consistent moderators. Experiment 1 tests for the core effect using an incentive-compatible paradigm in which consumers with New Year's resolutions to cut back on their monetary spending on indulgences made a real choice regarding whether to receive a financial advice guide on cutting frequency or on cutting intensity. Experiment 2 further tests the core effect through a two-week dieting study, in which consumers with goals to cut back on their caloric indulgences made a real choice regarding which dieting plan to follow for a two-week period, and thus which dieting website to have access to for a two-week period: one with advice on cutting frequency or one with advice on cutting intensity.

Experiment 3 then tests for further replication of the core effect, using a novel simulation game paradigm in which consumers engaged in consumption behaviors that simulated consuming more expensive lattes or cheaper basic coffees and decided how to cut their consumption spending midway through the simulation game. Experiment 4 then measures both consumers’ interest in cutting frequency and their interest in cutting intensity, testing whether a social (vs. solitary) indulgence both increases interest in cutting intensity and decreases interest in cutting frequency. Parallel mediation is also used to test the process involving two main sources of anticipated enjoyment—from the product versus aspects outside the product.

Finally, Experiments 5 and 6 test theory-consistent moderators. Experiment 5 tests whether the core effect is specific to social experiences with close others, while being eliminated for experiences with distant others. Experiment 6 tests whether focusing consumers in solitary experiences on enjoyment of aspects of the experience outside of the product (vs. the product itself) also leads such consumers to favor reducing intensity and to be averse to reducing frequency. Table 1 summarizes the experiments. The Web Appendix contains literature tables, annotated stimuli, and supplemental analyses. For preregistrations, materials, data, and syntax, see https://researchbox.org/84.

Table 1.

Summary of Experiments.

Exp.	Design	Main Findings
1	2 (solitary, social) between-subjects	Consumers with New Year's resolutions to cut back on their monetary spending for indulgences were more likely to choose to receive a financial advice guide with tips on cutting back on frequency (vs. intensity) when their spending indulgences were framed as solitary (vs. social).
2	2 (solitary, social) between-subjects	Consumers with goals to cut back on their calories for indulgences took part in a two-week dieting study. At the beginning of the two weeks, consumers focused on their solitary (vs. social) caloric indulgences were more likely to choose a diet plan with two-week access to a dieting website with tips on cutting back on frequency (vs. intensity). At the end of the two weeks, participants reported cutting back with some success and also provided their open-ended suggestions for increasing adherence to cutback plans.
3	2 (solitary, social) between-subjects	Consumers were more likely to choose to cut back on frequency (vs. intensity) for a consumption indulgence framed as solitary (vs. social) in a simulation game in which they made an actual consumption choice.
4	3 (solitary, social, social with friends’ assurance; between-subjects) × 2 (cut: frequency, intensity; within-subject) mixed	Consumers have both an increased preference to cut frequency and a decreased preference to cut intensity for a consumption indulgence framed as solitary (vs. social). The divergence in cutback preferences for solitary (vs. social) consumption indulgences is explained by differences in anticipated enjoyment of the product and of anticipated enjoyment of aspects outside of the product. The core effect generalizes to a social situation in which one's friends assure the consumer that they can still socialize together as much if the consumer cuts frequency.
5	3 (solitary, social with close others, social with distant others; between-subjects) × 2 (cut: frequency, intensity; within-subject) mixed	When social consumption indulgence involves distant others rather than close others, the difference in cutback preferences for solitary (vs. social) consumption indulgences is eliminated.
6	3 (solitary, social, solitary + enjoyment intervention; between-subjects) × 2 (cut: frequency, intensity; within-subject) mixed	When consumers focus on aspects of enjoyment outside the product for a solitary consumption indulgence rather than on aspects of enjoyment for the product itself, the difference in cutback preferences for solitary (vs. social) consumption indulgences is eliminated.

Experiment 1: New Year's Resolutions to Cut Back

Experiment 1 tests for the core effect among consumers with a New Year's resolution to cut back monetary spending on indulgences. Participants were randomly assigned to think about either how their indulgences are often social (i.e., in the presence of friends or family) or how their indulgences are often solitary. Participants then made a real choice of whether to receive a financial advice guide focused on cutting frequency or on cutting intensity. I predicted that when indulgences were framed as social (vs. solitary), consumers would be less likely to choose the guide with advice focused on cutting frequency (vs. intensity).

Method

Participants and design

This experiment was preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/tp7e5.pdf) and posted on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) on January 4 and 5, 2021. As preregistered, I posted the experiment for 600 participants to complete. Repeat worker IDs (n = 2) were excluded, leaving 598 participants for analysis (55.0% female, 44.0% male, 1.0% other; M_age = 37.87 years, SD_age = 11.94 years; M_income = $67,523, SD_income = $54,855). Participants were eligible if they reported in a screener that they had a New Year's resolution to cut back monetary spending on indulgences. This experiment had a 2 (solitary, social) group between-subjects design.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to the solitary or the social condition. In the solitary (vs. social) condition, participants thought about their spending on indulgences and how people often have such experiences by themselves (vs. with family members and/or friends). They were then asked to think about an indulgence that they frequently engage in on their own (vs. socially) in terms of monetary spending.

Participants were then presented with brief descriptions of two different financial advice guides, one focused on cutting frequency and one focused on cutting intensity. After participants chose their guide, they were shown the full guide they selected and were informed that they could save or print a copy of the guide. See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Financial advice guides (Experiment 1).

Results and Discussion

Choice of financial advice guide

A logistic regression on guide choice was significant (B = .58, SE = .18, Wald χ² = 10.42, p = .001, odds ratio (OR) = 1.79), such that participants were more likely to choose the guide on cutting intensity (i.e., less likely to choose the guide on frequency) in the social condition (cut intensity: 36.9%, cut frequency: 63.1%) than the solitary condition (cut intensity: 24.7%, cut frequency: 75.3%).

Discussion

These findings provide initial evidence of the core effect using an incentive-compatible paradigm in which consumers with New Year's resolutions to cut back on their spending made a real choice regarding which kind of advice guide for cutting back they received. Specifically, when indulgences were framed as social (vs. solitary), consumers were less likely to choose the guide with advice focused on cutting frequency (vs. intensity).

Experiment 2: Choosing a Dieting Plan for Two Weeks

Experiment 2 tests for convergent evidence for the core effect among consumers with a goal to cut back on their caloric indulgences who agreed to participate in a two-week dieting study with two parts. In part 1 of the study, I tested the core effect by having participants randomly assigned to cut back on their social or solitary caloric indulgences choose which dieting plan they would try to follow for the next two weeks, and thus which dieting website they would have access to: one with advice focused on cutting frequency or one with advice focused on cutting intensity. Participants then reported back at the end of two weeks to take part 2, an exploratory questionnaire on their experiences during the two-week dieting study.

Method

Participants and design

This two-part experiment was preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/bw3sj.pdf), with parts 1 and 2 taking place two weeks apart, with participants recruited from MTurk. This experiment had a 2 (solitary, social) group between-subjects design. Participants were eligible to take part 1 if they indicated in a screener that they agreed to be contacted to take another survey after two weeks, that they would like to try to cut back on how many calories they eat for indulgences, and that they were ready to act on their goal over the next two weeks. After excluding repeat worker IDs (n = 3), 600 participants remained for analysis for part 1 (54.8% female, 44.7% male, .5% other; M_age = 41.08 years, SD_age = 12.33 years). Of these 600 participants, 477 completed part 2 approximately two weeks later (55.1% female, 44.7% male, .2% other; M_age = 41.69 years, SD_age = 12.53 years).

Part 1 procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to the solitary or social condition. In the solitary (vs. social) condition, participants were asked to think about eating indulgent foods and how such experiences are often done by themselves (vs. with family or friends). They were then asked to think about indulgences they would typically be eating on their own (vs. with family or friends) in the next two weeks and to cut back on indulgences on such occasions.

Participants then chose a plan for cutting back over the next two weeks, with each plan providing access to a different website containing tips specific to the cutback approach they chose: “A website on cutting frequency” or “A website on cutting intensity.” Participants then received access to their chosen website: either cuttingbackonindulgencefrequency.weebly.com or cuttingbackonindulgenceintensity.weebly.com. These two websites contained tips for either cutting frequency or cutting intensity, and their aesthetics were modeled after an existing dieting site to increase ecological validity. All participants visited their chosen website to read dieting tips and were asked to save the link to have access to it for the next two weeks.

Part 2 procedure

Two weeks later, participants completed a survey about their experiences over the past two weeks with cutting back on social or solitary indulgences (based on part 1's condition). Participants indicated if they attempted to cut back (1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “very much so”), how successful they were (1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “very much so”), how difficult it was to cut back (1 = “extremely easy,” and 7 = “extremely difficult”), how much they decreased frequency (1 = “not at all,” and 5 = “very much”), and how much they decreased intensity (1 = “not at all,” and 5 = “very much”). Finally, participants were told that the dieting website is in prototype development and were asked to provide their own open-ended suggestions for how to encourage them to cut back on their caloric indulgences more effectively in (social or solitary, based on part 1’s condition) situations over time.

Results and Discussion

Focal choice of cutback approach for two weeks

A logistic regression on cutback choice was significant (B = .36, SE = .17, Wald χ² = 4.67, p = .031, OR = 1.43), providing evidence of the core effect wherein participants were more likely to choose the cutting intensity plan with corresponding two-week access to the cutting intensity dieting website (vs. the cutting frequency plan with access to the cutting frequency dieting website) in the social condition (cut intensity: 46.2%, cut frequency: 53.8%) than the solitary condition (cut intensity: 37.5%, cut frequency: 62.5%).

Experience with cutting back over the two-week period

Of the 477 participants who completed part 2, 244 had been randomly assigned to the social condition in part 1 and 233 had been randomly assigned to the solitary condition in part 1 (exact binomial test: p = .647). Reflecting part 1's key findings on the core effect, those who returned for part 2 in the social condition were significantly more likely to have had two-week access to the dieting website with cutting intensity (vs. cutting frequency) advice (cut intensity: 46.7%, cut frequency: 53.3%) than those in the solitary condition (cut intensity: 32.2%, cut frequency: 67.8%; B = .61, SE = .19, Wald χ² = 10.43, p = .001, OR = 1.85). These findings indicate that the subset of participants who returned for part 2 had exhibited the core effect in part 1.

I also conducted exploratory analyses on participants’ experiences with cutting back over the prior two weeks. One-sample t-tests compared with the scale midpoint of 4 suggested that participants attempted to cut back on calories (M = 5.12, SD = 1.44; t(476) = 16.89, p < .001), felt they were somewhat successful (M = 4.55, SD = 1.54; t(476) = 7.83, p < .001), and felt that it was somewhat difficult (M = 4.82, SD = 1.44; t(476) = 12.47, p < .001). One-sample t-tests compared with the scale midpoint of 3 also indicated that participants cut frequency (M = 3.40, SD = 1.01; t(476) = 8.68, p < .001) and intensity (M = 3.44, SD = 1.04; t(476) = 9.31, p < .001). There was also some suggestive evidence that participants followed the cutback approach from their chosen plan, especially if they had chosen to cut frequency: the reported degree of cutting frequency was higher among those who had chosen the cut frequency website (M = 3.49, SD = .97) than among those who had chosen the cut intensity website (M = 3.26, SD = 1.06; t(475) = 2.42, p = .016); cutting intensity reports did not differ significantly as a function of website choice, however (p = .127). For additional exploratory analyses, see the Web Appendix.

Discussion

Experiment 2 thus provides further evidence for the core effect in a two-week dieting study in which consumers with goals to cut back on their caloric indulgences made a real choice regarding which cutback plan to follow, and thus which dieting website's tips they would have access to, for a two-week period. At the end of the two weeks, participants reported that they had attempted to follow these cutback plans with some success, though they also found cutting back to be somewhat difficult. Thus, future research could focus on examining ways to increase the ease of adhering to different cutback plans. Indeed, as I discuss in the “General Discussion” section, participants’ open-ended suggestions at the end of this two-week study provided many ideas for increasing adherence—many of which could be the foci of future investigation. The remaining experiments return to the present research's core focus on which cutback approach is more appealing based on whether an indulgence is social (vs. solitary).

Experiment 3: Consumption Choices in the Simulation Game of Life

Experiment 3 tests for convergent evidence for the core effect by prompting consumers to make cutback decisions regarding indulgent consumption in a simulation game. I used a simulation game paradigm because of challenges associated with experimentally controlling frequent consumption indulgences across time in real life. I thus designed a game in which participants engaged in consumption during the game and made a decision that affected their consumption during play. I adapted this simulation from “The Game of Life” or “Life,” a popular classic board game in which players “ride” in car game pieces with family members and move through the game board going to college, getting a job, and encountering various life events (Lepore 2007). In this adaptation, “The Game of Life: College Edition,” undergraduate students played through four “weeks” at college. During each week, they first engaged in various “school” activities at the beginning of the week (simulated by having participants do math or verbal tasks for 90 seconds) and then in “leisure” coffeehouse activities at the end of the week (simulated by actually eating various kinds of flavored chocolate-covered nuts). Indeed, going to the coffee shop is a frequent indulgence that people engage in both socially and solitarily (Ratner and Hamilton 2015), and thus, I chose it as the simulated consumption activity for Experiment 3.

In weeks 1 and 2 of the simulation, all participants established a weekly consumption indulgence consisting of having a “gourmet latte” at the end of the school week, which was simulated by having all participants use game tokens to purchase and eat a café latte chocolate-covered almond. For weeks 3 and 4, however, participants were informed that they needed to cut back on their game token spending by half. Thus, they were given a choice for how to spend their next two weeks. Either they could cut down on the frequency of their gourmet lattes to every other week or they could cut down on the intensity of their gourmet lattes to instead have a cheaper “basic coffee” simulated by eating a coffee chocolate-covered peanut. The key manipulation was whether participants were randomly assigned to the social (vs. solitary) condition before engaging in the simulation. In the solitary condition, they played the simulation game with a game piece consisting of a car in which they were the only occupant. In the social condition, they played the simulation game with a game piece consisting of a car in which they were joined by their closest college friend. The reason I specified that they should think of being joined by their closest college friend is that the effect is predicted to diminish for distant others, with whom anticipated enjoyment of aspects outside of the product should be much lower. Finally, because participants had to adhere to their chosen plan, I also included exploratory measures of retrospective enjoyment of the experience, to examine whether the social (vs. solitary) framing affected retrospective enjoyment in the simulation game.

Method

Participants and design

U.S. undergraduate students (N = 288; 52.4% female, 47.6% male; M_age = 19.61 years, SD_age = 1.15 years) completed this lab experiment for credit as part of a bundle of unrelated studies run in 35 separate hour-long sessions from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. across one week. This experiment had a 2 (solitary, social) group between-subjects design. Because participants were instructed to consume chocolate-covered nuts, participants who reported allergies or related dietary restrictions were excluded (n = 24), with the final sample being 264 students (51.5% female, 48.5% male; M_age = 19.61 years, SD_age = 1.17 years). (Allergy distribution did not differ across conditions; χ²(1) = .25, p = .619).

Procedure

Participants were seated at privacy-partitioned computer stations. All participants were informed that they would be playing a simulation game called “The Game of Life: College Edition” in which they would go through four “weeks” at college, where they would engage in various activities, including both school and leisure activities.

Participants were first shown an image of an empty car game piece from the “Life” board game and answered questions enabling customization of their car game piece. Participants were randomly assigned to either the solitary or the social experience condition. In the solitary condition, participants indicated their gender and university affiliation; in the social condition, participants also indicated the gender and university affiliation of their closest friend who also attends the same university. Participants were then shown their customized car with either one or two occupants based on condition and were told, “You (or you and your close friend, based on condition) will be riding this car as you play The Game of Life this college semester.” Figure 2, Panel A, depicts examples of the customized car game pieces in each condition. Each participant's customized car game piece was shown to them at the beginning of each of the four “weeks” of the simulation, to make the solitary or social aspect of their experience more salient.

Figure 2.

The simulation game of life (Experiment 3).

In weeks 1 and 2, I established the same baseline frequent consumption indulgence across all participants by having them engage in academic activities during the week and then consume a “gourmet latte” at the end of the week. Specifically, in week 1, participants simulated academic activities for 90 seconds by doing math exercises. Then, at the end of week 1, participants were shown the menu for The Game of Life Coffeeshop, which sold both gourmet lattes for ten game tokens each (simulated by a gourmet café latte chocolate-covered almond) and basic coffees for five game tokens each (simulated by a basic coffee chocolate-covered peanut). For an image of this menu, see Figure 2, Panel B. Participants were told that they had budgeted ten game tokens, enough for buying a gourmet latte, and that they should “think of this like a [based on condition: personal, social] indulgence of yours, where you go to get a gourmet latte [based on condition: by yourself, with your close friend] at the end of each week.” Participants then simulated this experience by each consuming a gourmet café latte chocolate-covered almond located at their computer stations (all chocolate-covered nuts were individually wrapped). In week 2, participants simulated academic activities for 90 seconds by doing verbal exercises. Then, they again simulated having a latte at the end of the week by each eating a gourmet café latte chocolate-covered almond and thinking about this as a personal or a social indulgence.

In weeks 3 and 4, participants again engaged in academic activities but had to cut back on their indulgence spending by half. Specifically, in week 3, participants again simulated academic activities by doing math exercises, similar to those in week 1, and in week 4, participants again simulated academic activities by doing verbal exercises, similar to those in week 2. The focal dependent variable was measured at the end of week 3's academic activities, when participants made a real decision about how to cut back on their game token spending. Specifically, participants were informed that they needed to cut back on their discretionary spending by 50%, to spend half as many game tokens overall. Participants then chose between cutting frequency by having a latte every other week (which they would simulate by eating a café latte chocolate-covered almond every other week in weeks 3 and 4) versus cutting intensity by having a basic coffee every week (which they would simulate by eating a basic cheaper chocolate-covered peanut every week in weeks 3 and 4). This choice was consequential because it affected how participants actually spent their leisure time at the end of weeks 3 and 4. Participants who chose to cut frequency skipped the coffee shop at the end of week 3 but ate a gourmet café latte chocolate-covered almond at the end of week 4. Participants who chose to cut intensity ate a basic coffee chocolate-covered peanut at the end of both weeks 3 and 4. Figure 2, Panel C, shows the four-week flow of the simulation as a function of a participant's choice.

After the four-week simulation game, participants completed supplemental measures about their future behavioral intentions and their retrospective enjoyment of various aspects of the simulation game experience. Specifically, they indicated what they would choose to do for leisure activities in weeks 5 and 6 (cut frequency or cut intensity), how much they enjoyed their leisure time in weeks 1 and 2 and in weeks 3 and 4 (both 1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “very much”), and how much enjoyment they got from the gourmet latte and from aspects of the experience other than the gourmet latte (both 1 = “not much enjoyment at all,” and 7 = “a lot of enjoyment”). Enjoyment was measured retrospectively to avoid disrupting the focal cutback choice, consistent with other research on the effect of social experiences on enjoyment (Raghunathan and Corfman 2006).

Participants then indicated which nut option they viewed as more enjoyable and which they would prefer to eat right now (café latte chocolate-covered almond, coffee chocolate-covered peanut, or similar enjoyment/preference). Most participants indeed viewed the café latte chocolate-covered almond as a more desirable splurge than the coffee chocolate-covered peanut (for details on the minority of participants who preferred the basic coffee nut, see the Web Appendix). Participants also indicated any relevant allergies or dietary restrictions. They also completed the seven-item change-seeking index (M = .50, SD = .72; α = .83) (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1995) so I could explore whether this scale predicted cutting intensity (thus trying two kinds of nuts). Finally, participants indicated prior familiarity with the board game “The Game of Life” (248/264 [221/264] reported having heard of [played] the board game before that day).

Results and Discussion

Focal choice to cut intensity versus frequency (real eating choice for weeks 3 and 4)

A logistic regression of social versus solitary condition on cutback choice was significant (B = 1.05, SE = .29, Wald χ² = 12.76, p < .001, OR = 2.86), such that participants were more likely to cut intensity (i.e., less likely to cut frequency) in the social condition (82.9% cut intensity, 17.1% cut frequency) than in the solitary condition (63.0% cut intensity, 37.0% cut frequency), conceptually replicating Experiments 1 and 2's core effect findings. The effect of social versus solitary condition remained significant (B = 1.04, SE = .30, Wald χ² = 12.41, p < .001, OR = 2.83) when controlling for individual differences in change-seeking tendencies (mean-centered). Indeed, change-seeking tendencies directionally, but nonsignificantly, predicted the preference to cut intensity versus frequency (B = .30, SE = .20, Wald χ² = 2.25, p = .133, OR = 1.35), suggesting that preferences for how to cut back were not substantially driven by variety-seeking.

Future behavioral intentions for the next time period (weeks 5 and 6)

To explore whether participants were interested in continuing with the cutback choice they had made for weeks 3 and 4, I also examined what participants’ choice for weeks 5 and 6 would be if the simulation game had continued. A logistic regression of social versus solitary condition on cutback choice for weeks 5 and 6 was significant (social condition: 61.2% cut intensity, 38.8% cut frequency; solitary condition: 45.2% cut intensity, 54.8% cut frequency; B = .65, SE = .25, Wald χ² = 6.77, p = .009, OR = 1.92). Of the 192 participants who chose to cut intensity for weeks 3 and 4, 66.7% stuck with cutting intensity for weeks 5 and 6; of the 72 participants who chose to cut frequency for weeks 3 and 4, 83.3% stuck with cutting frequency for weeks 5 and 6. Thus, there was an overall shift toward more consumers choosing to cut frequency for weeks 5 and 6 (compared with weeks 3 and 4), possibly reflecting some participants’ desire to sample the cutting intensity “basic coffee” option in weeks 3 and 4 before shifting back to the “gourmet latte” option. Notably, the key effect of social versus solitary condition on cutback preferences remained significant for weeks 5 and 6.

Retrospective enjoyment of various aspects of the simulation game

I then explored how much participants indicated having enjoyed their leisure time in weeks 1 and 2 (i.e., their initial weeks before cutting back) by conducting a 2 (social vs. solitary) group t-test on weeks 1 and 2 enjoyment. Retrospective enjoyment for weeks 1 and 2 was marginally significantly higher in the social condition (M = 5.71, SD = 1.33) than in the solitary condition (M = 5.39, SD = 1.35; t(262) = 1.94, p = .054), consistent with findings on hedonic benefits of social experiences (Caprariello and Reis 2013; Raghunathan and Corfman 2006). I then analyzed how much participants indicated having enjoyed their leisure time in weeks 3 and 4 after cutting back took place, by conducting a 2 (social vs. solitary) group t-test on weeks 3 and 4 enjoyment. Enjoyment from weeks 3 and 4 was similar in the social condition (M = 4.84, SD = 1.37) and in the solitary condition (M = 4.79, SD = 1.22; t(262) = .28, p = .780).

I also explored how much enjoyment participants reported getting from the consumption product (i.e., the gourmet latte) and from aspects of the experience other than the consumption product by conducting a 2 (social vs. solitary) × 2 (product enjoyment, other aspects enjoyment) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) where the first factor was between-subjects, and the second factor was within-subject. This analysis revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 262) = 4.50, p = .035, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .017). Follow-up tests showed that the social (vs. solitary) nature of a frequent consumption indulgence marginally significantly increased enjoyment from the consumption product (M_solitary = 5.08, SD = 1.70 vs. M_social = 5.46, SD = 1.65; t(262) = 1.82, p = .070, d = .23) while significantly increasing enjoyment from other aspects of the experience (M_solitary = 4.51, SD = 1.65 vs. M_social = 5.44, SD = 1.57; t(262) = 4.69, p < .001, d = .58).

Discussion

Altogether, Experiment 3 provides further evidence for the core effect, but with highly controlled stimuli involving the same frequency and nature of indulgences, differing only in the social (vs. solitary) framing. It is worthwhile to note that Experiments 1–3 differed in multiple ways, including the use of different domains for cutting back (money or calories), participant populations, paradigms, and incentive-compatible choice outcomes. Thus, together, they provide considerable evidence for the robustness of the core effect.

In addition, because participants consumed products simulating a frequent consumption indulgence and then decided how to cut back, Experiment 3 also enabled me to explore whether the core effect persisted after participants experienced their initially chosen cutback strategy for a given (simulated) time period; results indicated that the effect did persist. Moreover, this paradigm also enabled me to explore retrospective enjoyment of aspects of the experience. These exploratory retrospective enjoyment analyses revealed findings consistent with prior research showing that social experiences heighten retrospective enjoyment (Raghunathan and Corfman 2006); they also suggest that social (vs. solitary) experiences may especially boost retrospective enjoyment for aspects other than the product.

Of course, there are differences between this simulation experiment and experiences in the real world. For instance, participants did not actually consume latte or coffee drinks but rather latte or coffee-flavored nuts. In the real world, consumers might have more experience with the taste of the cutting intensity option (i.e., greater experience with the taste of plain coffee than the taste of a coffee-flavored chocolate-covered peanut). Importantly, however, although this difference might affect the percentage of people choosing to cutting intensity overall (e.g., elevating cutting intensity in the simulation if consumers are curious about the cutting intensity option's taste), this difference does not easily account for the core effect: the difference in preferred cutback approach across the solitary and social conditions.

Experiment 4: Interest in Cutting Frequency and Cutting Intensity

Experiment 4 extends our understanding of the core effect's properties, process, and generalizability. First, whereas Experiments 1–3 examined a choice between cutting frequency and cutting intensity, Experiment 4 examines the core effect's properties by having participants separately indicate their interest in a cutting intensity approach and a cutting frequency approach, allowing for testing whether a social (vs. solitary) indulgence both increases interest in cutting intensity and decreases interest in cutting frequency.

Second, examining the process, participants completed measures of anticipated enjoyment from the product itself and anticipated enjoyment from aspects of the experience outside of the product. I thus tested whether a solitary (vs. social) indulgence is focused more on anticipated enjoyment from the product itself (vs. aspects of the experience outside of the product), thereby decreasing the preference to cutting intensity (which mainly hurts enjoyment from the product) and increasing the preference to cut frequency (which mainly hurts enjoyment from aspects outside the product).

Third, exploring generalizability, in addition to including solitary and social conditions that are conceptually analogous to those in Experiments 1–3, Experiment 4 also includes a third condition: a social condition in which one's friends provide assurance that if the consumer chooses to cut the frequency of this indulgence occasion, they can still get together and socialize just as often elsewhere. If the difference in cutback preferences for social versus solitary indulgences generalizes to this variant of the social condition, it would suggest that consumers are averse to disrupting this particular occasion's frequency. For instance, consumers may not want to inconvenience themselves or their friends by cutting back on the frequency of this still-enjoyable occasion and having to figure out alternative ways to get together as often.

Method

Participants and design

U.S.-based participants (N = 452) from Prolific Academic completed this experiment (50.0% female, 48.2% male, 1.8% other; M_age = 34.83 years, SD_age = 11.97 years), which was preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/hp5j4.pdf). This experiment had a 3 (solitary, social, social with friends’ assurance; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed design.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the solitary condition, participants imagined engaging in a frequent solitary consumption experience in which they go on their own to a nearby coffeehouse every week to get a drink, typically a gourmet coffee-based drink for $4. In both of the social conditions, participants imagined engaging in a frequent social consumption experience in which they go to a nearby coffeehouse every week to get a drink, typically a gourmet coffee-based drink for $4, with their close friends also being there at the coffeehouse.

All participants then read about two financial management apps, one that would prompt consumers to cut frequency and one to cut intensity, and they were asked to indicate their interest in each app if they wanted or needed to cut back on their spending. In the social-with-friends’-assurance condition, participants also read, “If you do want to cut frequency, your friends have assured you that you can all still get together and socialize just as often, so you will not miss out on any get-together occasions with them if you do cut your frequency of consuming gourmet coffees.” The two dependent measures were “How interested would you be in the financial management app that prompts you to decrease your FREQUENCY of spending money by going LESS OFTEN to the coffee shop [based on condition: by yourself, with your close friends] (keeping the $4 drink that you purchase the same)?” and “How interested would you be in the financial management app that prompts you to decrease the INTENSITY of spending money by buying a cheaper drink at the coffee shop [based on condition: by yourself, with your close friends] (going there just as often)?” (both on a 1 = “not at all,” and 5 = “very much” scale; order counterbalanced).

Finally, participants rated their anticipated enjoyment from the drink itself and from other aspects besides the drink for this weekly experience (both on a 1 = “no enjoyment at all,” and 5 = “a great deal of enjoyment” scale). Participants also indicated if they had current goals to cut back on their spending and if they had current feelings of monetary constraint. The Web Appendix contains moderation analyses, which show that consumers’ current goals and feelings of monetary constraint do not moderate the findings in this experiment or in Experiments 5 and 6.

Results and Discussion

Interest in cutting frequency and interest in cutting intensity

A 3 (solitary, social, social with friends’ assurance; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(2, 449) = 17.20, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .071). See Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Interest in cutting frequency and cutting intensity as a function of experience type (Experiment 4).

I then ran three preregistered follow-up 2 × 2 mixed ANOVAs. First, a 2 (solitary, social; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 298) = 26.58, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .082). Follow-up contrasts showed the social versus solitary effect was significant for cutting frequency app interest (F(1, 298) = 18.73, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .059), which was higher in the solitary (M = 3.35, SD = 1.32) than in the social (M = 2.71, SD = 1.21) condition. The social versus solitary effect was also significant for cutting intensity app interest (F(1, 298) = 12.64, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .041), which was higher in the social (M = 3.52, SD = 1.26) than in the solitary (M = 2.99, SD = 1.31) condition.

Second, a 2 (social, social with friends’ assurance; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed neither a significant interaction (F(1, 300) = .13, p = .724, $η_{p}^{2}$ < .001) nor a main effect of social versus social with friends’ assurance (F(1, 300) = .30, p = .586, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001), indicating that the two social conditions did not differ in app interest. Finally, the 2 (solitary, social with friends’ assurance; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 300) = 23.83, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .074), with the pattern of divergence between the solitary and the social with friends’ assurance conditions being similar to the divergence between the solitary and social conditions.

Enjoyment from the product and aspects outside the product

Ratings for the two enjoyment sources were not highly correlated (r = .08, p = .104); as preregistered, they were analyzed separately. A one-way ANOVA on anticipated enjoyment from the product was significant (F(2, 449) = 13.17, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06); the solitary condition involved higher anticipated enjoyment from the product itself (M = 3.67, SD = .91) compared with both the social condition (M = 3.26, SD = .92; p < .001) and the social-with-friends’-assurance condition (M = 3.14, SD = .99; p < .001), which did not differ (p = .287).

A one-way ANOVA on anticipated enjoyment from aspects of the experience other than the product was also significant (F(2, 449) = 38.83, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .15); the solitary condition involved lower anticipated enjoyment from aspects other than the product (M = 3.45, SD = 1.01) compared with both the social condition (M = 4.25, SD = .87; p < .001) and the social-with-friends’-assurance condition (M = 4.26, SD = .84; p < .001), which did not differ (p = .875).

Given that the two social conditions did not differ either on the dependent measures or on the anticipated enjoyment measures, I collapsed across them for mediation analyses. Specifically, I conducted two (nonpreregistered) parallel mediation analyses (Hayes 2013), one for each dependent measure, with social versus solitary framing as the independent variable (1 = social or social with friends’ assurance, 0 = solitary) and enjoyment from the product itself and enjoyment from other aspects as parallel mediators. These mediation analyses revealed that anticipated enjoyment from other aspects outside of the product mediated the effect of social versus solitary indulgence both on interest in cutting frequency (95% confidence interval [CI]: [−.25, −.03]) and interest in cutting intensity (95% CI: [.16, .42]). Specifically, social (vs. solitary) indulgence increased anticipated enjoyment from aspects outside of the product, decreasing interest in cutting frequency and increasing interest in cutting intensity. In addition, anticipated enjoyment from the product also mediated the effect of social versus solitary indulgence on interest in cutting frequency (95% CI: [−.19, −.04]). See Figure 4 for the parallel mediation patterns. The Web Appendix contains more details on the parallel mediation analysis for this experiment and for Experiments 5 and 6, which replicated these parallel mediation findings.

Figure 4.

Parallel mediation of the effect of social (vs. solitary) indulgence on interest in cutting frequency and interest in cutting intensity via anticipated enjoyment from different sources (Experiment 4).

Discussion

Experiment 4 thus extends our understanding in three main ways. First, this experiment shows that a frequent consumption indulgence that is framed as social (vs. solitary) both increases interest in cutting intensity and decreases interest in cutting frequency. Second, this experiment also shows that the anticipated enjoyment for social (vs. solitary) consumption indulgences is primarily rooted in aspects of the experience outside the product (vs. the product itself), and that these differential sources of anticipated enjoyment together underlie differing interest in cutting intensity and cutting frequency. Finally, this experiment shows that the higher preference to cut intensity and lower preference to cut frequency for social (vs. solitary) experiences generalizes even for social situations in which one's friends provide assurance that they can still get together and socialize as often if the consumer chooses to cut frequency. These findings indicate that consumers are quite averse to disrupting this particular get-together occasion's frequency. Indeed, consumers may not want to inconvenience themselves or their friends by cutting back on the frequency of this still-enjoyable occasion and having to come up with other ways to get together as frequently.

Experiment 5: A Social Experience with Close (vs. Distant) Others

Thus far, the experiments have examined social indulgence experiences with close others (e.g., friends or family). However, consumption can also take place simply in the same environment with distant others (e.g., strangers at one's local coffee shop). Whereas being in the presence of socially close others will likely boost anticipated enjoyment of aspects outside of the product, the same may not occur in the presence of socially distant others, such as strangers. Prior research has shown, for instance, that consuming together with an acquainted other, not an unacquainted stranger, amplifies positive experiences (Boothby et al. 2016, 2017). Experiment 5 thus tests whether the differential preferences for cutting intensity versus frequency are particular to social experiences that involve close others, while being mitigated for social experiences with distant others (e.g., strangers).

Method

Participants and design

U.S.-based participants (N = 451) from Prolific Academic completed this experiment (55.2% female, 43.7% male, 1.1% other; M_age = 35.13 years, SD_age = 11.89 years), which was preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/ys23z.pdf). This experiment had a 3 (solitary, social with close others, social with distant others; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed design.

Procedure

Participants first took part in a similar task as in Experiment 4. In the solitary condition, participants imagined engaging in a frequent consumption experience in which they go to a nearby coffeehouse every week to get a drink (typically a gourmet coffee-based drink for $4) by themselves; they were asked to think of this experience as a solitary one that they engage in on their own. In the social-with-close-others condition, participants imagined engaging in a frequent consumption experience in which they go to a nearby coffeehouse every week to get a drink (typically a gourmet coffee-based drink for $4) with their close friends also being there at the coffeehouse; they were asked to think of this experience as a social one that they engage in with their close friends. In the social-with-distant-others condition, participants imagined engaging in a frequent consumption experience in which they go to a nearby coffeehouse every week to get a drink (typically a gourmet coffee-based drink for $4) with some other people also being there at the coffeehouse (mostly people in the neighborhood area that they do not know well); they were asked to think of this experience as a social one that they engage in with other people that they do not know well. All participants were asked to describe this weekly activity with various details.

As in Experiment 4, all participants were then provided with information about two financial management apps, one that would prompt consumers to cut frequency and one to cut intensity, and were asked to indicate their interest in each app: “How interested would you be in the financial management app that prompts you to decrease your FREQUENCY of spending money by going LESS OFTEN to the coffee shop [based on condition: by yourself, with your close friends, with other people] (keeping the $4 drink that you purchase the same)?” and “How interested would you be in the financial management app that prompts you to decrease the INTENSITY of spending money by buying a cheaper drink at the coffee shop [based on condition: by yourself, with your close friends, with other people] (going there just as often)?” (both on a 1 = “not at all,” and 5 = “very much” scale; order counterbalanced).

Participants then indicated how much enjoyment they anticipated they would get from the drink itself and from aspects besides the drink for their weekly experience. They also reported if they had current goals to cut back on their monetary spending and feelings of monetary constraint or restriction (for moderation analyses using these measures, see the Web Appendix).

Results and Discussion

Interest in cutting frequency and interest in cutting intensity

A 3 (solitary, social with close others, social with distant others; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(2, 448) = 14.91, p < .001, η_p² = .062). See Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Interest in cutting frequency and cutting intensity as a function of experience type (Experiment 5).

I then ran three preregistered follow-up 2 × 2 mixed ANOVAs. First, a 2 (solitary, social with close others; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 312) = 24.69, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .073). Replicating the pattern from the prior experiments, cutting frequency app interest was higher in the solitary condition (M = 3.26, SD = 1.26) than the social-with-close-others condition (M = 2.69, SD = 1.29; F(1, 312) = 15.68, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .048); conversely, cutting intensity app interest was higher in the social-with-close-others condition (M = 3.44, SD = 1.32) than the solitary condition (M = 2.99, SD = 1.33; F(1, 312) = 8.95, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .028).

Second, a 2 (solitary, social with distant others; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed neither a significant interaction (F(1, 295) < .01, p = .995, $η_{p}^{2}$ < .001) nor a main effect of condition (F(1, 295) = .28, p = .597, η_p² = .001), indicating no difference between the social-with-distant-others and solitary conditions. Finally, a 2 (social with close others, social with distant others; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 289) = 20.83, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .067). Interest in the cutting frequency app was higher for a social indulgence with distant others (M = 3.31, SD = 1.36) than close others (M = 2.69, SD = 1.29; F(1, 289) = 16.25, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .053). Conversely, interest in the cutting intensity app was higher for a social indulgence with close others (M = 3.44, SD = 1.32) than distant others (M = 3.04, SD = 1.39; F(1, 289) = 6.03, p = .015, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .020).

Enjoyment from the product and aspects outside the product

Ratings for the two enjoyment sources were not highly correlated (r = .10, p = .026) and were analyzed separately as preregistered. An ANOVA on anticipated enjoyment from the product was significant (F(2, 448) = 5.97, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .026); the social experience with close others was anticipated to involve less enjoyment from the product itself (M = 3.31, SD = 1.02) than either the solitary experience (M = 3.67, SD = .93; p < .001) or the social experience with distant others (M = 3.58, SD = .93; p = .017), which did not differ (p = .412). An ANOVA on anticipated enjoyment from aspects of the experience other than the product was also significant (F(2, 448) = 40.55, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .153); the social experience with close others was anticipated to involve greater enjoyment from aspects outside the product (M = 4.42, SD = .73) than either the solitary experience (M = 3.73, SD = 1.03; p < .001) or the social experience with distant others (M = 3.42, SD = 1.14; p < .001), which also differed, as the social experience with distant others was seen as even less enjoyable (p = .006). The Web Appendix contains parallel mediation analyses, which show similar results to those in Experiment 4, in terms of the driving differences between the solitary and the social-with-close-others conditions. In addition, similar driving differences occurred between the social-with-distant-others and the social-with-close-others conditions.

Discussion

Experiment 5 shows that it is the anticipated presence of close others, not just others in general, that makes consumers more interested in cutting intensity and less interested in cutting frequency for a social experience. Indeed, only social experiences with close others significantly boosted anticipated enjoyment for aspects outside the product, whereas social experiences with distant others—like solitary experiences—were centered more on enjoyment associated with the product itself. Notably, these findings are likely limited to experiences in which people do not particularly enjoy being around strangers; if strangers were more desirable, famous, or otherwise enjoyable to be around, then cutback preferences would likely appear more similar to those for experiences with close others.

Experiment 6: A Solitary Experience Focused on Enjoyment of Aspects Outside of the Product

Experiment 6 tests a theory-consistent intervention on the solitary condition, affecting anticipated enjoyment for solitary experiences. Specifically, I test whether shifting the main source of anticipated enjoyment for a solitary indulgence experience from the product itself that one is trying to cut back on to aspects of the experience outside of the product eliminates the divergent preferences between social versus solitary indulgences. Indeed, for any product consumption experience, there can be various nonsocial sources of enjoyment outside of the product itself, including other activities that can simultaneously be done during consumption (Milkman, Minson, and Volpp 2014), other environmental aspects (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982), and sentimental value (Yang and Galak 2015). This intervention is also practically relevant: much indulgent consumption takes place solitarily, and marketers who offer within-category substitutes may be more interested in having consumers cut intensity rather than frequency, especially in the caloric domain (as it need not involve lower monetary spending).

Besides testing this intervention, Experiment 6 also generalizes the core effect, extending it to examine (1) virtual social consumption experiences (common during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which this experiment was run) and (2) situations in which consumption, but not purchase, occurs socially, as a social consumption experience is defined in terms of consuming together with close others regardless of purchasing together.

Method

Participants and design

U.S.-based participants (N = 452) from Prolific Academic completed this experiment (52.2% female, 45.8% male, 2.0% other; M_age = 33.31 years, SD_age = 11.43 years), which was preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/e46h8.pdf). This experiment had a 3 (solitary, social, solitary intervention; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed design.

Procedure

All participants imagined engaging in a weekly consumption experience every Saturday night. In the social condition, participants imagined that they had a weekly “ice cream social happy hour over Zoom,” during which they get themselves a rich chocolate ice cream bar to enjoy while on a videoconference with their close friends. In the solitary condition, participants imagined that they had a weekly “ice cream solitary happy hour” during which they get themselves a rich chocolate ice cream bar, which they enjoy by themselves. In the solitary intervention condition, participants did the same as in the solitary condition; however, they further read about aspects of enjoyment of this experience outside of that associated with the ice cream (e.g., reading a favorite book, listening to one's favorite music, taking a rest from the week), such that much of this time involves aspects of enjoyment outside of the ice cream itself.

All participants were then provided with information about two calorie management apps, one that would prompt consumers to cut frequency and one to cut intensity, and were asked to indicate their interest in each app if they wanted or needed to cut back on their calories: “How interested would you be in the calorie management app that prompts you to decrease your FREQUENCY of having ice cream happy hours (but keeping the rich gourmet chocolate ice cream bar when you do have happy hour)?” and “How interested would you be in the calorie management app that prompts you to decrease the INTENSITY of your indulgence by having a lighter, low-fat version of the ice cream (but having your happy hour just as often)?” (both on a 1 = “not at all,” and 5 = “very much” scale; order counterbalanced).

Participants then indicated how much enjoyment they anticipated from the ice cream itself and from other aspects besides the ice cream for this weekly experience. They also reported if they had current goals to cut back on their caloric intake and feelings of caloric budget constraint or restriction (for moderation analyses involving these measures, see the Web Appendix).

Results and Discussion

Interest in cutting frequency and interest in cutting intensity

A 3 (solitary, social with close others, solitary intervention; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(2, 449) = 14.70, p < .001, η_p² = .061). See Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Interest in cutting frequency and cutting intensity as a function of condition (Experiment 6).

I then conducted three preregistered follow-up 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA tests. First, a 2 (solitary, social; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 299) = 18.43, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .058). Generalizing the findings from the prior studies to calorie management, cutting frequency app interest was higher in the solitary condition (M = 3.22, SD = 1.25) than the social condition (M = 2.58, SD = 1.29; F(1, 299) = 19.25, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .060); conversely, cutting intensity app interest was higher in the social condition (M = 3.75, SD = 1.19) than the solitary condition (M = 3.39, SD = 1.23; F(1, 299) = 6.72, p = .010, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .022).

Second, a 2 (solitary, solitary intervention; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest also revealed a significant interaction (F(1, 299) = 25.67, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .079). The solitary intervention changed cutback preferences: cutting frequency app interest was lower in the solitary intervention condition (M = 2.40, SD = 1.16) than the solitary baseline condition (M = 3.22, SD = 1.25; F(1, 299) = 34.51, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .103); conversely, cutting intensity app interest was higher in the solitary intervention condition (M = 3.71, SD = 1.31) than the solitary baseline condition (M = 3.39, SD = 1.23; F(1, 299) = 4.83, p = .029, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .016). Finally, the 2 (social, solitary intervention; between-subjects) × 2 (cutting frequency, cutting intensity; within-subject) mixed ANOVA on interest revealed neither a significant interaction (F(1, 300) = .33, p = .563, η_p² = .001) nor a significant main effect of condition (F(1, 300) = 1.55, p = .213, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .005), indicating that the solitary intervention eliminated the preference differences for social and solitary indulgences.

Enjoyment from the product and aspects outside the product

Ratings for the two enjoyment sources were not correlated (r = −.01, p = .905) and were analyzed separately as preregistered. An ANOVA on anticipated enjoyment from the product was significant (F(2, 449) = 26.67, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .106); the solitary experience (M = 3.99, SD = .81) was anticipated to involve more enjoyment from the product itself than either the social experience (M = 3.65, SD = .91; p = .001) or the solitary intervention experience (M = 3.24, SD = .94; p < .001), which also differed (p < .001). An ANOVA on anticipated enjoyment from aspects of the experience other than the product was also significant (F(2, 449) = 50.94, p < .001, η_p² = .185); the solitary experience (M = 3.51, SD = 1.01) was anticipated to involve lower enjoyment from aspects other than the product itself than either the social experience (M = 4.13, SD = .82; p < .001) or the solitary intervention experience (M = 4.48, SD = .69; p < .001), which also differed (p < .001). The Web Appendix contains parallel mediation analyses, which show similar results to those in Experiments 4 and 5, in terms of the driving differences between the solitary and the social conditions. In addition, similar driving differences occurred between the solitary and the solitary intervention conditions.

Discussion

Experiment 6 thus generalized the core effect in several ways while identifying a theory-consistent intervention on solitary indulgence experiences: focusing on enjoyment of aspects outside the product eliminates the divergence between cutback preferences for social (vs. solitary) indulgences. Because much indulgent consumption takes place solitarily, Experiment 6 offers a key practical insight: if a marketer wants to promote cutting intensity (e.g., marketing a lighter version of an indulgent food), then they should shift consumers from considering the enjoyment of the product itself to how the product fits as part of an experience wherein aspects outside the product are a focal source of enjoyment.

General Discussion

Contributions

Theoretical contributions

By bridging the largely separate literature streams on reducing resource expenditure with the social versus solitary distinction in consumption, this research offers theoretical contributions to and extends both literatures. First, the goals and resource expenditure literature in consumer behavior has focused primarily on choices between indulging or not indulging. In the present work, the focus is not on indulging or not indulging but rather on different routes to indulging less. Further, prior work on indulging less tends to hold consumption frequency constant and takes place in a solitary context. For instance, such work compares within-category substitutes (cutting intensity in the present framework) with cross-category substitutes (Arens and Hamilton 2016, 2018; Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016) or with cutting per-occasion portion sizes (Liu and Haws 2020) in a solitary context, holding frequency constant. By contrast, the present work compares within-category substitutes (i.e., cutting intensity) with cutting frequency and, moreover, shows that whether the consumption occurs as part of a social (vs. solitary) experience shapes cutback preferences.

Second, prior work on social versus solitary consumption has focused on how social (vs. solitary) consumption experiences have advantages over solitary experiences, such as heightening enjoyment and closeness (Bastos and Brucks 2017; Boothby, Clark, and Bargh 2014; Raghunathan and Corfman 2006; Ramanathan and McGill 2007). The present research extends this prior work by distinguishing between anticipated enjoyment from the product and from aspects outside the product and by showing how these differential sources of anticipated enjoyment differentially underlie preferences to cut frequency and intensity.

Methodological contributions

This research provided convergent evidence for the importance of the social versus solitary distinction in consumption indulgences as a predictor of preferences to cut frequency and to cut intensity by using multiple paradigms: a New Year's resolutions real-choice study (Experiment 1), a two-week dieting study (Experiment 2), a multiround simulation game using actual consumption (Experiment 3), and framing scenarios (Experiments 4–6). Adapting the Game of Life into a simulation game in Experiment 3 offers a new tool that future researchers can also use to set up controlled experiments on consumers’ preferences for intertemporal decisions about consumption indulgences. This simulation game paradigm enables researchers to address some of the challenges associated with experimenting on intertemporal repeated consumption decisions in the real world. For instance, the baseline variation in real-world consumption indulgences (e.g., what is one person's “daily latte” could be another person's monthly manicure) can make it challenging to offer a controlled set of real consumption choices as cutback alternatives. The adapted Game of Life simulation allows experimenters to randomize aspects such as social framing (via one's car game piece), while controlling other aspects. Of course, the use of simulation games has limitations. For instance, Morrin et al. (2002) employed game simulation studies to examine investment portfolio choices of small samples of security analysts and noted the limitation that they might constrain natural behavior. Nonetheless, such studies still provide a valuable way to conduct experiments that examine behavior patterns over (simulated) time periods—see also, the use of a simulation game in Fernbach, Kan, and Lynch (2015)—especially when paired with other methods.

Practical contributions

For consumers, this research suggests that when the need or desire arises to cut back on one's frequent consumption indulgences, one may experience a higher motivation to cut back if the framing of the consumption (solitary vs. social) is aligned with the proffered means of cutting back (cut frequency vs. cut intensity). This insight is also relevant both for policy makers and for marketers. For policy makers, there is often little recognition of the social context in which cutback decisions take place. For example, advice on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's website for how to “spring clean” one's finances encourages consumers to track their past credit card spending and advises, “If you’re looking to cut back, try breaking down necessary expenses versus wants” (Fiano 2018). The present research offers more precise guidance: break down “wants” into social and solitary wants. This breakdown enables more precise guidance on how to design financial or calorie management information sources or interventions (e.g., apps with messaging) targeted to consumers’ context to better appeal to how consumers prefer to cut back for their particular consumption context. Note that forming an intention to cut back is an important first step for taking behavioral action toward goals, and intentions correlate with actions, such that targeting intentions is the focus of many behavioral change approaches (Ajzen 1991). At the same time, as evidenced by the intention–behavior gap (Sheeran and Webb 2016) and the related hot–cold empathy gap (Loewenstein 2005), intentions do not always translate into behaviors. Thus, information or interventions that encourage cutting back on frequency or intensity based on a consumer's social context may be paired with strategies to help close these gaps (Sheeran and Webb 2016), such as the formation of implementation intentions (Gollwitzer and Sheeran 2006) and the use of precommitment programs or contracts (Ashraf, Karlan, and Yin 2006; Giné, Karlan, and Zinman 2010; Halpern, Asch, and Volpp 2012). I discuss other ideas to close these gaps in the following subsection, including ideas drawn from participants’ open-ended suggestions in the two-week dieting study (Experiment 2).

For marketers, consumers’ preferred way to cut back can have different revenue implications, based on whether a consumer is seeking to cut their monetary spending or caloric intake. If a consumer is seeking to cut monetary spending, then both cutting frequency and cutting intensity may pose considerable costs to marketers. The cost of cutting intensity may be even higher if it entails switching to a different firm's less expensive brands or product substitutes. By contrast, if a consumer wants to cut back on caloric intake, then cutting frequency poses a bigger challenge to marketers than cutting intensity, especially if a firm is able to provide lower-calorie substitutes in its own portfolio. If a firm does offer lower-calorie substitutes, there is an opportunity to promote consumers’ likelihood of cutting intensity and maintaining frequency. Specifically, this research offers insights into two marketing approaches worthy of further testing: (1) encourage one's indulgence to be consumed as part of social experiences (Experiments 1–5) or (2) focus consumers who are consuming solitarily on aspects of enjoyment of the experience outside the product itself (Experiment 6).

Building on This Framework in Future Research

Adherence to and effectiveness of different cutback approaches

This research focused on consumers’ interest in starting different approaches to cutting back, which is important, as this can guide the design and targeting of information sources and interventions to which consumers will be attracted. However, future work might focus on other outcomes, such as adherence to and success at cutting back. Indeed, such work could identify barriers to following different kinds of cutback approaches when in social (vs. solitary) contexts, as well as test potential solutions. In line with such aims, I collected open-ended suggestions from participants in Experiment 2 (the two-week dieting study) regarding what would have helped them adhere to the cutback plans they chose to pursue for two weeks. Although some expressed that simply setting the goal and choosing a plan with cutback tips had been helpful, others added suggestions to further increase their adherence (see the Web Appendix). For instance, one participant used the contact form on one of the dieting websites to leave the following suggestion: “It might be good to have a list of my favorite indulgences that I want to cut back on and then have you email (today is a great day for XYZ) with the goal only to have an indulgence when I get an email. Then it makes it sort of like a game and surprise and something to look forward to.” Others also felt that reminders on a timed basis would help them adhere to their cutback plans over time. Additional participant-suggested strategies to promote adherence included prompting advance preparation before indulgence occasions (e.g., encouraging looking at the menu in advance before going to a restaurant, setting up one's environment to distract from indulgences or to make indulgences less accessible) and having an “adherence buddy”—another person to help them stick to cutting back.

Indeed, future work examining barriers specific to social consumption may be especially challenging yet interesting, as such barriers may relate to others’ consumption actions. For instance, cutting intensity in social contexts may evoke discomfort if one consumes a cheaper or lower-calorie option than others (Liu, McFerran, and Haws 2020) and may be difficult when others’ coordination is needed (e.g., going to a cheaper pizza place or ordering a large veggie pizza on whole wheat crust). Thus, suggestions related to having an adherence buddy system may be especially important for social indulgences. Future studies could examine the extent to which consumers adhere to cutting frequency or cutting intensity approaches, both as a function of consumers’ social versus solitary context and whether different strategies to bridge intention–behavior gaps are also used (for ideas from participants, see the Web Appendix).

Future work might also examine outcomes specific to social consumption experiences involving cutting back. Experiment 5 hints at one major aspect of the anticipated enjoyment from aspects outside the product for social experiences—social connection benefits from interacting with close others—as these presumably do not come as much from interacting with distant others. Accordingly, future work might examine consumers’ beliefs about the consequences of cutting frequency versus cutting intensity for their social connections with others, and also whether these beliefs about consequences match the actual social consequences of cutting back.

Additional routes to cutting back

This research examined two key ways of cutting back, cutting intensity and cutting frequency. Future research could build on this work by examining how the social (vs. solitary) distinction affects interest both in other moderation approaches and in complete abstention (Table 2). Such future work might also use the present framework's distinction between enjoyment sources. For instance, I focused on within-category substitutes, which decrease anticipated enjoyment of the product itself (Arens and Hamilton 2016). Because cross-category substitutes and cutting portion sizes might better preserve product enjoyment than within-category substitutes (Huh, Vosgerau, and Morewedge 2016; Liu and Haws 2020), interest in these approaches might be elevated overall but possibly more so for solitary consumption, as consumers are more concerned with product enjoyment for solitary consumption. By contrast, a complete abstention approach removes both enjoyment sources; this may be highly unappealing, but especially for social consumption. These and other questions await, using a social (vs. solitary) framework that considers a broader picture of the multiple sources of enjoyment from consumption experiences.

Table 2.

Ways to Cut Back on Frequent Consumption Indulgences.

Way of Cutting Back	Examples for Cutting Back from a Gourmet Coffee Drink Daily
Present Research
Cut frequency	A gourmet coffee drink every other day
Cut intensity (within-category substitute)	A cheap coffee drink daily (money) A low-calorie coffee drink daily (calories)
Future Research
Cross-category substitute	A cheap cookie daily (money) A low-calorie cookie daily (calories)
Cut portion size	A smaller (thus cheaper) gourmet coffee drink daily (money) A smaller (thus less-caloric) gourmet coffee drink daily (calories)
Complete abstention	No more coffee-based drinks

Increasing frequency and intensity

This research examined cutting back on frequent indulgences to spend fewer resources. However, this framework could also be used more generally, to examine consumers’ interest in different routes to increasing resource acquisition (e.g., earning more money, building up a calorie deficit). For instance, people aiming to build up a calorie deficit could go to the gym more frequently or exercise more intensely on each gym visit. This decision could be examined from a social versus solitary perspective: if going to the gym is part of one's established social (vs. solitary) routine, one possibility is that increasing frequency is much more difficult for a social routine, as it requires another person's coordination.

This framework could also be used more generally by examining consumers’ interest in different routes to increasing resource expenditure (e.g., spending more money, consuming more calories). For instance, after experiencing a job promotion with a salary increase, does a consumer who enjoys a weekly latte consume a latte more frequently, upgrade to a more expensive latte, or perhaps both? Indeed, marketers are often interested both in encouraging more frequent visits by consumers and in encouraging consumers to purchase more indulgent upgrades. Reward programs can also be structured to reward greater visit frequency or upgrading to more indulgent versions. Such programs could be examined from a social versus solitary perspective, either with the social (vs. solitary) distinction as a predictor of reward program preference or with different reward program structures potentially affecting the likelihood of engaging in social (vs. solitary) consumption. For instance, a greater visit frequency reward program might facilitate more solitary consumption, whereas a greater intensity reward program might facilitate more social consumption to the extent that the presence of others allows consumers to indulge. Altogether, there is ample room for future investigation on how the social context of consumption can shape consumption decisions with respect to resource acquisition and expenditure.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-mrj-10.1177_00222437211055741 - Supplemental material for Frequency Versus Intensity: How Thinking of a Frequent Consumption Indulgence as Social Versus Solitary Affects Preferences for How to Cut Back

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-mrj-10.1177_00222437211055741 for Frequency Versus Intensity: How Thinking of a Frequent Consumption Indulgence as Social Versus Solitary Affects Preferences for How to Cut Back by Peggy J. Liu in Journal of Marketing Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Ed Anderson and undergraduate research assistants at the University of Pittsburgh Katz/CBA Business Research Center for research assistance with Experiment 3 data collection. The author also thanks seminar participants at Carnegie Mellon University, Grenoble Ecole de Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; Kate Min and Andrew Williams; and the JMR review team for their insightful comments.

Associate Editor

Eileen Fischer

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding from the University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business, the Ben L. Fryrear Chair in Marketing, and the Ben L. Fryrear Faculty Fellowship is gratefully acknowledged.

ORCID iD

Peggy J. Liu

Online supplement:

References

Ajzen

Icek

(1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.

Allison

Ralph I.

Uhl

Kenneth P.

(1964), “Influence of Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (3), 36–9.

Arens

Zachary G.

Hamilton

Rebecca W.

(2016), “Why Focusing on the Similarity of Substitutes Leaves a Lot to Be Desired,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (3), 448–59.

Arens

Zachary G.

Hamilton

Rebecca W.

(2018), “The Substitution Strategy Dilemma: Substitute Selection Versus Substitute Effectiveness,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 130–46.

Ashraf

Nava

Karlan

Dean

Yin

Wesley

(2006), “Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence from a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121 (2), 635–72.

Bach

David

(2002), “Interview with Fredricka Whitfield, Anchor of CNN Sunday Morning,” CNN (December 29).

Bach

David

Mann

John David

(2019), The Latte Factor. New York: Atria Books.

Barsalou

Lawrence W

. (1983), “Ad Hoc Categories,” Memory & Cognition, 11 (3), 211–27.

Bartels

Daniel M.

Urminsky

Oleg

(2015), “To Know and to Care: How Awareness and Valuation of the Future Jointly Shape Consumer Spending,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1469–85.

10.

Bastos

Wilson

Brucks

Merrie

(2017), “How and Why Conversational Value Leads to Happiness for Experiential and Material Purchases,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (3), 598–612.

11.

Baumeister

Roy F.

Leary

Mark R.

(1995), “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation,” Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497–529.

12.

Bhargave

Rajesh

Montgomery

Nicole Votolato

(2013), “The Social Context of Temporal Sequences: Why First Impressions Shape Shared Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 501–17.

13.

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), 529–46.

14.

Boothby

Erica J.

Clark

Margaret S.

Bargh

John A.

(2014), “Shared Experiences Are Amplified,” Psychological Science, 25 (12), 2209–16.

15.

Boothby

Erica J.

Smith

Leigh K.

Clark

Margaret S.

Bargh

John A.

(2016), “Psychological Distance Moderates the Amplification of Shared Experience,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42 (10), 1431–44.

16.

Boothby

Erica J.

Smith

Leigh K.

Clark

Margaret S.

Bargh

John A.

(2017), “The World Looks Better Together: How Close Others Enhance Our Visual Experiences,” Personal Relationships, 24 (3), 694–714.

17.

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.

18.

Cavanaugh

Lisa A

. (2014), “Because I (Don’t) Deserve It: How Relationship Reminders and Deservingness Influence Consumer Indulgence,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 218–32.

19.

Cornil

Yann

Chandon

Pierre

(2016), “Pleasure as a Substitute for Size: How Multisensory Imagery Can Make People Happier with Smaller Food Portions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (5), 847–64.

20.

Fernbach

Philip M.

Kan

Christina

Lynch

John G.

Jr . (2015), “Squeezed: Coping with Constraint Through Efficiency and Prioritization,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (5), 1204–27.

21.

Fiano

Liane

(2018), “4 Tips to Spring Clean Your Finances,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (March 20), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/its-not-too-late-spring-clean-your-finances/.

22.

Galak

Jeff

Redden

Joseph P.

(2018), “The Properties and Antecedents of Hedonic Decline,” Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 1–25.

23.

Giné

Xavier

Karlan

Dean

Zinman

Jonathan

(2010), “Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: A Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 213–35.

24.

Gollwitzer

Peter M

. and Sheeran

Paschal

(2006), “Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Effects and Processes,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 38, Zanna

Mark P.

, ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

25.

Halpern

Scott D.

Asch

David A.

Volpp

Kevin G.

(2012), “Commitment Contracts as a Way to Health,” BMJ, 344, e522.

26.

Hayes

Andrew F

. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford.

27.

Hirschman

Elizabeth C.

Holbrook

Morris B.

(1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92–101.

28.

Hoch

Stephen J.

Loewenstein

George F.

(1991), “Time-Inconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-Control,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 492–507.

29.

Holbrook

Morris B.

Hirschman

Elizabeth C.

(1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 132–40.

30.

Huh

Young Eun

Vosgerau

Joachim

Morewedge

Carey K.

(2016), “More Similar but Less Satisfying: Comparing Preferences for and the Efficacy of Within- and Cross-Category Substitutes for Food,” Psychological Science, 27 (6), 894–903.

31.

Khan

Uzma

Dhar

Ravi

Wertenbroch

Klaus

(2005), “A Behavioral Decision Theory Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, Ratneshwar

Mick

David Glen

, eds. London: Routledge.

32.

Kivetz

Ran

Keinan

Anat

(2006), “Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-Control Regrets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2), 273–82.

33.

Kivetz

Ran

Simonson

Itamar

(2002), “Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 199–217.

34.

Kivetz

Ran

Zheng

Yuhuang

(2006), “Determinants of Justification and Self-Control,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135 (4), 572–87.

35.

Kraut

Robert E.

Johnston

Robert E.

(1979), “Social and Emotional Messages of Smiling: An Ethological Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (9), 1539–53.

36.

Lepore

Jill

(2007), “The Meaning of Life,” The New Yorker (May 14), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/21/the-meaning-of-life.

37.

Liu

Peggy J

Dallas

Steven K

Fitzsimons

Gavan J

Price

Linda L

Reczek

Rebecca Walker

(2019), “A Framework for Understanding Consumer Choices for Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (3), 407–434. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1093/jcr/ucz009.

38.

Liu

Peggy J.

Haws

Kelly L.

(2020), “Cutting Calories: The Preference for Lower Caloric Density Versus Smaller Quantities Among Restrained and Unrestrained Eaters,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (5), 948–65.

39.

Liu

Peggy J.

Haws

Kelly L.

Lamberton

Cait

Campbell

Troy H.

Fitzsimons

Gavan J.

(2015), “Vice-Virtue Bundles,” Management Science, 61 (1), 204–28.

40.

Liu

Peggy J.

Kwon

Theresa A.

(2022), “Predicting Others’ Social Interaction Preferences: What to Do, for How Long, and How Often,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 43 (February), 139–45.

41.

Liu

Peggy J.

McFerran

Brent

Haws

Kelly L.

(2020), “Mindful Matching: Ordinal Versus Nominal Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (1), 134–55.

42.

Loewenstein

George

(2005), “Hot-Cold Empathy Gaps and Medical Decision Making,” Health Psychology, 24 (4), S49–56.

43.

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.

44.

Milkman

Katherine

Minson

Julia

Volpp

Kevin

(2014), “Holding the Hunger Games Hostage at the Gym: An Evaluation of Temptation Bundling,” Management Science, 60 (2), 283–99.

45.

Morrin

Maureen

Jacoby

Jacob

Johar

Gita Venkataramani

Xin

Kuss

Alfred

Mazursky

David

(2002), “Taking Stock of Stockbrokers: Exploring Momentum Versus Contrarian Investor Strategies and Profiles,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 188–98.

46.

Nestle

Marion

(2010), “How Many Cookies Make You Fat?” The Atlantic (January 8), https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/01/how-many-cookies-make-you-fat/33104/.

47.

Nowlis

Stephen M.

Mandel

Naomi

McCabe

Deborah Brown

(2004), “The Effect of a Delay Between Choice and Consumption on Consumption Enjoyment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 502–10.

48.

Okada

Erica Mina

(2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 43–53.

49.

Pinel

Elizabeth C.

Long

Anson E.

Landau

Mark J.

Alexander

Kira

Pyszczynski

Tom

(2006), “Seeing I to I: A Pathway to Interpersonal Connectedness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (2), 243–57.

50.

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), 386–94.

51.

Raghunathan

Rajagopal

Naylor

Rebecca Walker

Hoyer

Wayne D.

(2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 170–84.

52.

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), 506–24.

53.

Ratner

Rebecca K.

Hamilton

Rebecca W.

(2015), “Inhibited from Bowling Alone,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 266–83.

54.

Sevilla

Julio

Redden

Joseph P.

(2014), “Limited Availability Reduces the Rate of Satiation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 205–17.

55.

Sheeran

Paschal

Webb

Thomas L.

(2016), “The Intention–Behavior Gap,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10 (9), 503–18.

56.

Shu

Suzanne B.

Gneezy

Ayelet

(2010), “Procrastination of Enjoyable Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (5), 933–44.

57.

Steenkamp

Jan-Benedict E.M.

Baumgartner

Hans

(1995), “Development and Cross-Cultural Validation of a Short Form of CSI as a Measure of Optimum Stimulation Level,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12 (2), 97–104.

58.

Wight

Kelley M.

Liu

Peggy J.

Bettman

James R.

Fitzsimons

Gavan J.

(2021), “Social Relationships and Consumer Behavior,” in APA Handbook of Consumer Psychology, Huber

Joel

Kahle

Lynn R.

Lowrey

Tina M.

, eds. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 351–72.

59.

Woolley

Kaitlin

Fishbach

Ayelet

(2017), “A Recipe for Friendship: Similar Food Consumption Promotes Trust and Cooperation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (1), 1–10.

60.

Yang

Galak

Jeff

(2015), “Sentimental Value and Its Influence on Hedonic Adaptation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109 (5), 767–90.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

15.85 MB