The Quality Versus Quantity Trade-Off: Why and When Choices for Self Versus Others Differ

Abstract

The trade-off between quality and quantity pervades many domains of life, including that of making product choices for ourselves and others, whether as gifts or as everyday favors. In five studies (four pre-registered), participants preferred quality over quantity when choosing for a friend versus for themselves. We demonstrate that one reason why this difference in choice for self and other arises is because of heightened self-presentation concerns: People choosing for friends (vs. self) are more concerned about conveying poor taste, thus increasing choice of quality (vs. quantity). Consistent with this process, the effect is mitigated when choosing for a nonjudgmental friend or when choosing for a person whom one does not highly value. Finally, this effect is particular to quality-quantity trade-offs; it does not occur for flavor-quantity trade-offs, indicating that the effect is driven by the quality aspect rather than by the quantity aspect or by cost-per-unit considerations.

Keywords

self–other decision-making quality quantity self-presentation trade-offs

It is quality rather than quantity that matters.

—Lucius Annaeus Seneca

It’s quantity, not quality

—Dean Ween

Buy less. Choose well. Make it last. Quality, not quantity. Everybody’s buying far too many clothes.

—Vivienne Westwood

As these quotes demonstrate, the question of choosing quality or quantity is one that has drawn interest across many domains, with advice abounding on whether quality or quantity is more important in various contexts. In the present research, we examine the quality-quantity trade-off in the common context of making everyday choices, and we ask, “How does choosing for oneself (vs. another person—one’s friend) affect the quality-quantity trade-off?” Indeed, people commonly choose not just for themselves but also for their friends, both in gift-giving occasions and as part of performing everyday favors. For instance, when picking up a US$15 coffee shop gift card for a friend (vs. oneself), is a person more likely to choose a card to a coffee shop that serves higher quality coffee at a higher price per cup or one that serves lower quality coffee but at a cheaper price per cup? Or, outside of gift-giving, when picking up a US$2 package of mints for a friend (vs. for oneself), is a person more likely to pick a package containing a smaller quantity of higher quality name-brand mints or a package containing a larger quantity of lower quality store-brand mints? In this research, we examine how, why, and when choosing for oneself (vs. one’s friend) affects the quality-quantity trade-off.

This research contributes to several literatures. First, we contribute to the literature on attribute trade-offs, examining factors affecting the quality-quantity trade-off, which is not yet well-understood, and also comparing it with the flavor-quantity trade-off. Second, we contribute to the social influence literature on the self–other distinction by identifying a new asymmetry in preferences for self and other and identifying when and why this asymmetry occurs, focusing on the underlying role of self-presentational concerns. Finally, from a practical perspective, these findings offer guidance for understanding how to improve choices for others, such that they better match what people would prefer to choose for themselves.

Conceptual Development

The Quality Versus Quantity Trade-Off

We focus on quality versus quantity decisions in everyday, relatively low-cost product categories (e.g., mints, coffee shop gift cards, shampoo, soap, and olive oil). For practical reasons, quality-quantity trade-offs often arise in such categories (see the pilot study in the online supplemental Stimulus Materials File for examples of products involved in quality-quantity trade-offs). Indeed, prior research on choices for others has emphasized that everyday product categories are the ones for which people commonly make choices for others without prior consultation with them on their exact preferences (P. J. Liu et al., 2019). Thus, we do not consider highly expensive, durable product categories (e.g., buying a high-quality car vs. multiple lower quality cars; buying a high-quality suit vs. multiple lower quality suits) for which there may either be strong (practical or constraint-based) norms to choose quality over quantity or a small likelihood of making a choice for a friend without their explicit input.

In the context of most low-cost everyday product categories, both higher quality and higher quantity are attractive and desirable and thus, typically associated with higher prices. This is perhaps universally true for quality, wherein higher levels of quality—defined as superiority on various dimensions over alternatives (e.g., on performance, appearance; Sethi, 2000)—are preferable to lower quality. Holding all else constant, a gift card for higher quality coffee is preferable to a gift card for lower quality coffee. Likewise, higher quality name-brand mints are preferable to lower quality store-brand mints. Indeed, by definition, quality involves vertical, rather than horizontal product differentiation (Spiller & Belogolova, 2017). Put differently, quality facilitates “ordinal” ranking judgments of “better” or “worse,” in contrast to an attribute like flavor, which is “nominal” and facilitates judgments of “same” or “different” (P. J. Liu et al., 2020).

Quantity, likewise, is also often ordinally ranked (P. J. Liu et al., 2020), with higher levels of quantity often being more attractive. A gift card redeemable for more cups of coffee is preferable to one redeemable for fewer cups of coffee. For everyday staple products without a rapid expiration date (e.g., mints, shampoo, and olive oil), a larger quantity is preferable to a smaller quantity. Of course, unlike with quality, there are some boundaries—for instance, a smaller bottle of shampoo may occasionally be preferable to a larger bottle of shampoo, such as when planning to take a trip by airplane. Or, a large bottle of olive oil that exceeds limited pantry space might be less preferable than a smaller bottle of olive oil. In general, however, and especially for the quantity levels we study, both higher quality and higher quantity are assumed to be desired. Because higher quality and higher quantity both generally entail higher prices, a trade-off thus commonly arises when there is a budget constraint: People can choose either a higher quality, lower quantity option or a lower quality, higher quantity option.

The judgment and decision-making literature exhibits much interest in attribute trade-offs and how aspects of the choice context shape trade-off preferences. However, relatively little is known about the quality-quantity trade-off. The most closely related, perhaps, is the trade-off between price and quality, wherein a main finding is that higher priced products are perceived to be higher quality (Gneezy et al., 2014; Levin & Johnson, 1984). Quality-quantity trade-offs are related, in that the choice options differ in price-per-unit-quantity, yet they are also distinct from price-quality trade-offs because they remove differences in the total price paid from consideration and introduce quantity instead as trading off with quality. Furthermore, whereas the decision of how much to pay in total is itself a decision shaped by many factors (e.g., how wealthy am I, am I paying or is my friend paying; Erickson & Johansson, 1985; Lowrey et al., 2004), quality-quantity trade-offs remove these added considerations involving total price paid. Holding total price paid constant also occurs: People often have an approximate total price in mind when budgeting for purchasing a product for themselves (Stilley et al., 2010) or for others (Lowrey et al., 2004). In addition, when friends ask each other to pick up products for them, they may often have a general price level in mind (e.g., a friend handing you a few dollars and asking you to pick up a pack of mints or a coffee). Thus, people face situations involving thinking about trade-offs between quality and quantity—and such trade-offs happen both when making choices for oneself and for others.

Choosing for Self Versus Others and the Role of Self-Presentations

Many choices that people make involve choosing for others (Cavanaugh, 2016; Galak et al., 2016; Gunasti & Baskin, 2018; Y. Liu et al., 2018; P. J. Liu et al., 2019; Simpson et al., 2012). An emerging literature thus compares choices for self versus others, finding that people exhibit different choice processes and make different choices (P. J. Liu et al., 2019; Polman & Wu, 2020). Whether a person is choosing for oneself or another person is a variable of both theoretical and practical interest. Theoretically, the self–other distinction is a major one, with social psychologists interested in understanding how, why, and when decisions for oneself differ from those for others (Polman, 2012; Pronin et al., 2002, 2008; Ruessmann & Topolinski, 2020). Practically, most research on how people make product choices is based on understanding how people make choices for themselves, yet people commonly make such choices on behalf of others. The existing literature has produced various findings, including that people choose greater variety (Choi et al., 2006) and exhibit less choice overload (Polman, 2012) when choosing for others than for themselves. In addition, in terms of attribute trade-offs as an outcome, prior research demonstrates that people choose feasibility over desirability (presumably because of construal-level differences; Lu et al., 2013) and health over indulgence when choosing for self versus others (due to a heightened goal management mind-set when choosing for oneself; Laran, 2010).

We extend the general notion that choices for others versus self can involve different attribute trade-off preferences. However, we focus on the quality-quantity trade-off, testing our prediction that people will exhibit a greater choice preference for quality over quantity when choosing for others (vs. oneself). Furthermore, we propose that one broad underlying reason for the effect is based on self-presentational concerns (Goffman, 1959).

Self-presentational concerns entail people wanting others to view them positively and to avoid viewing them negatively (Baumeister, 1982; Leary, 2019). Indeed, deviation from one’s self-presentational ideals can lead to embarrassment (Keltner & Buswell, 1997; Tangney, 1999), a self-conscious emotion that people often experience in the course of their daily lives when their self-presentation is threatened (Miller, 1996; Tangney, 1999). Although self-presentational concerns commonly occur in public social contexts, people can also experience self-presentational concerns and associated negative emotions privately when no other person is actually around to witness the behavior and others’ presence is merely implied or even just imagined (Dahl et al., 2001; Krishna et al., 2015).

In the context of making quality-quantity choices for oneself or one’s friends, we first propose that self-presentational concerns will be heightened when choosing for friends (vs. for oneself). This prediction draws from literature on self-presentational concerns, which indicates that the implied presence of others heightens such concerns (e.g., Ratner & Kahn, 2002). When choosing for a friend who will experience the product, although the friend is not there in person at the moment of choosing, the person choosing likely imagines or thinks of the friend’s presence. Choosing for a friend also entails an implied subsequent social interaction in which the friend will naturally become aware of the option chosen for them. By contrast, when choosing for oneself, self-presentational concerns should be lower as the implied presence of others should be greatly reduced.

We further propose that self-presentational concerns will predict choosing quality over quantity. We make this prediction based on literature on self-presentational considerations in consumption contexts, wherein such considerations arise in choice contexts that pose social risk considerations. As Mandel (2003) puts it, “A social risk is one in which a negative outcome would result in embarrassment or disapproval among one’s family or peers, whereas a positive outcome would result in approval or esteem among one’s family or peers” (p. 31). Whereas prior research has often focused on choice contexts involving product categories that in and of themselves pose self-presentational concerns when bought (e.g., condoms; Blair & Roese, 2013; Dahl et al., 2001), we suggest that self-presentational concerns can also occur within options in product categories that themselves do not pose self-presentational concerns when purchased.

Specifically, we suggest that choosing a lower quality, higher quantity option (which we also refer to as a “quantity option”) over a higher quality, lower quantity option (also referred to as a “quality option”) can pose self-presentational concerns due to at least one of two aspects. These two aspects stem from social-signaling considerations and economic considerations (Elliott & Leonard, 2004). The social-signaling aspect entails the concern that choosing a quantity option may signal worse taste as compared with a quality option. Indeed, we suggest that although both quality and quantity are ordinal attributes (P. J. Liu et al., 2020), quality may provide a stronger vertical-differentiation cue than quantity, as higher quality is always superior to lower quality, all else constant, whereas higher quantity is often but not always superior to lower quantity (Spiller & Belogolova, 2017). Therefore, by choosing a higher quality product—even if it has a smaller quantity—a consumer may signal greater discernment and better taste in products than if they choose a higher quantity option with lower quality.

The second aspect entails the concern that choosing a quantity option may signal being “cheap” as compared with a quality option, as it has a lower cost-per-unit. Indeed, people sometimes view aspects of being poor (e.g., receiving food stamps) or engaging in “cheap” behaviors (e.g., coupon redemption) as posing self-presentational concerns (Ashworth et al., 2005; Goodban, 1985); relatedly, choosing store brands may connote a lower social status (Achenreiner & John, 2003). To the extent that people worry that choosing a lower quality, higher quantity option may connote more “cheapness” as one is purchasing a cheaper-per-unit item, then this source of self-presentational concerns may also decrease choice of quantity (vs. quality).

To summarize, because the quantity option typically does not send as positive a self-presentational signal as the quality option—either connoting poorer taste or more “cheapness” (or both), we predict that people choosing for others (vs. self) will experience heightened self-presentational concerns and thus are more likely to choose quality over quantity.¹

Importantly, a self-presentational process suggests several boundary conditions. First, this process suggests that the discrepancy in choices for self and other will be mitigated if choosing for a friend who is nonjudgmental about product choices that choosers make. Second, this process also suggests that the effect will be mitigated if the chooser cares relatively little about the other person’s judgment, as when choosing for a recipient whom the chooser does not value highly. Finally, a self-presentation process suggests that this discrepancy will not arise if flavor, rather than quality, is pitted against quantity. Whereas quality differences facilitate judgments of better or worse, flavor is a horizontal (or nominal) attribute, which facilitates judgments of same versus different (P. J. Liu et al., 2020; Spiller & Belogolova, 2017). For example, if choosing between two bottles of olive oil, one larger bottle with a lower cost-per-unit and one smaller bottle with a higher cost-per-unit, self-presentational concerns associated with choosing the larger bottle should be mitigated when the olive oil bottles are framed as differing in terms of flavor rather than quality.

Overview of Studies

Five studies test the effect of choosing for self (vs. others) on the quality-quantity trade-off. Study 1 first tests for the primary effect by recruiting dyads (mostly friends).

Study 2 then tests for mediational evidence of self-presentational concerns, including measures of two different self-presentation signal aspects in a parallel mediation model to explore whether one or both mediate: avoiding the appearance of having bad taste and avoiding looking cheap.

Studies 3 to 5 then test boundary conditions consistent with a self-presentation account. Study 3 tests whether the effect is mitigated when choosing for a nonjudgmental other. Study 4 tests whether the effect occurs when choosing for a highly valued other but is mitigated when choosing for a lowly valued other. Finally, Study 5 tests whether the effect is particular to the quality-quantity trade-off and is mitigated for a flavor-quantity trade-off.

Study 1 was conducted in 2017 and was not pre-registered. Studies 2 to 5 were conducted in 2020, and all four were pre-registered. The sample size for Study 1 was not pre-registered (based on a rule-of-thumb of 50-per-cell). Sample sizes for Studies 2 to 5 were pre-registered (we targeted 100-per-cell for Study 2, 200-per-cell for Study 3, 150-per-cell for Study 4, and 300-per-cell for Study 5). The online supplemental Stimulus Materials File contains the verbatim wording for the independent and dependent variable instructions, manipulations, and measures. The data and syntax are available at Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/3db52/. No participants were excluded. Table 1 summarizes the individual studies.

Table 1.

Summary of Studies.

Study	Product(s)	Purpose	Primary findings
1	Mints	Basic effect	The key effect occurs with real choices made by existing friend pairs in a field setting.
2^a	Shampoo	Mediation	The key effect extends to a clearly non-gifting context. The key effect is mediated by the concern to avoid seeming like one has bad taste (more so than the concern to avoid seeming cheap).
3^a	Coffee gift card	Boundary condition	The key effect is eliminated when choosing for a nonjudgmental other.
4^a	Soap	Boundary condition	The key effect occurs when choosing for a highly valued friend but is eliminated when choosing for a person whom the chooser does not value highly.
5^a	Olive oil	Boundary condition	The key effect occurs when making a quality-quantity trade-off but not when making a flavor-quantity trade-off.

Pre-registered studies.

Study 1: The Basic Effect With Dyads

Study 1 examines the effect of choice recipient (self vs. other) on choosing quality versus quantity with real choices. We predicted that people would be more likely to choose quality over quantity for other versus self.

Method

Sixty-four pairs, mostly friends (50 pairs of friends; N = 128 individual participants; 66.4% female, M_age = 21.88) walking together, who were approached by research assistants on or near a university campus in a large U.S. city, agreed to participate. Each dyad was randomly assigned to one of two conditions: choosing for self or choosing for other.

The two participants within each dyad were separated by research assistants, and participants completed their three-page surveys simultaneously without being able to view their partner’s survey. On the first page, participants completed the same filler task (a word search for U.S. cities’ names). The second page contained our condition manipulation and dependent measure (see the online supplemental Stimulus Materials File for the stimuli for all studies). Participants in the choosing for self (other) condition were told that, as a reward, they could choose one of two mint options for themselves (their friend). Thus, within each dyad, participants both made a choice, either for themselves or for each other, depending on their dyad’s condition. Specifically, participants indicated their preference from 1 = strongly prefer Option A (two packs of store-brand mints rated a 3.5/5 on quality) to 6 = strongly prefer Option B (one pack of national-brand mints rated a 4.5/5 on quality).

Participants then completed the third page, which contained a brief free-response question asking why they made the choice they did,² demographic questions, and a question regarding their relationship to their dyad member. Finally, participants received mints based on their selections for themselves or their friend, based on condition.

Results

We first analyzed the dyadic data for nonindependence on the quality-quantity dependent measure by calculating the intraclass correlation (ICC), recommended when dyad members are indistinguishable as with Study 1’s design (Alferes & Kenny, 2009; Kenny et al., 2006; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). The ICC was .19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [–.06, .41], F(63, 64) = 1.46, p = .132, two-tailed (Kenny et al., 2006), indicating no significant evidence of nonindependence. Thus, we treated the participant as the unit of analysis. As predicted, participants were significantly more likely to prefer quality over quantity when choosing for others versus oneself, M_other = 4.00, SD = 1.55 versus M_self = 3.13, SD = 1.56; t(126) = 3.16, p = .002, 95% CI_difference = [.33, 1.42], d = .56.

Discussion

Study 1 shows the key effect of choice recipient (self vs. other) on choosing quality versus quantity with real choices made within real dyads. The remaining studies shift to test the underlying role of self-presentation, both through mediation and boundary conditions.

Study 2: The Role of Self-Presentation

First, Study 2 tests whether the basic effect extends to a case in which participants are picking up a product for another person with the other person’s own money (i.e., clearly a non-gift-giving context). When gift-giving is involved, additional considerations such as a desire to show thoughtfulness and relational signaling may affect choices for others but not the self (Galak et al., 2016; Gino & Flynn, 2011; Steffel & LeBoeuf, 2014). Our focal process, however, is based on self-presentational concerns and is thus nonspecific to gift-giving. Indeed, although relational signaling considerations may also play some role in the key effect (as discussed later in the general discussion), we note that, in the context of everyday favors, especially when the recipient pays for the purchase, relational signaling considerations are likely quite weak, unlike with gift-giving (P. J. Liu et al., 2019).

Second, Study 2 tests whether the key effect is mediated by higher self-presentational concerns when choosing for a friend (vs. oneself). We measured two potential sources of self-presentational concerns, one based on wanting to avoid signaling bad taste and one based on wanting to avoid seeming cheap. As pre-registered, we conducted a parallel mediation model involving both forms of self-presentational concerns as potential mediators. We did not have a prediction about whether only one or both forms of self-presentational concerns would mediate, and thus, we left that part of the model as exploratory.

Method

Study 2 was pre-registered (https://aspredicted.org/ve73m.pdf). Participants (N = 201; 49.3% female; M_age = 35.15) from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) were randomly assigned to choose for self or other. Participants in the choosing-for-self condition read, “Imagine that you are at the mall now and you are looking at bottles of shampoo to purchase for yourself with the $10 you brought for this purchase.” Participants in the choosing-for-other condition read,

Think of a specific friend and imagine that this friend gave you $10 to pick up some shampoo for him/her at the mall. Imagine that you are at the mall now and you are looking at bottles of shampoo to purchase for your friend with the $10 your friend gave you.

Participants then indicated which shampoo they would purchase for “yourself” or “your friend” with the $10 (1 = definitely 30 oz. bottle of lower quality shampoo for $10, 7 = definitely 15 oz. bottle of high quality shampoo for $10).

All participants then responded to two items (counterbalanced), gauging different self-presentation aspects: “As you were making a choice about which shampoo to purchase for ‘yourself’ or ‘your friend,’ to what extent were you trying” 1) “to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products” and 2) “to avoid looking cheap” (both on a scale from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much so).

Results

Participants preferred quality over quantity when choosing for other versus oneself even in this clearly non-gifting context, M_other = 4.84, SD = 1.96 vs. M_self = 4.23, SD = 2.31; t(199) = 2.03, p = .044, 95% CI_difference = [.02, 1.21], d = .29.

As pre-registered, both potential self-presentational mediators were entered simultaneously in a parallel mediation model (Hayes, 2013). This analysis indicated that wanting to avoid appearing to have bad taste significantly mediated the effect of choice recipient on choice preference (95% CI = [.07, 1.07]), whereas wanting to avoid appearing cheap did not (95% CI = [–.33, .49]); see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Parallel mediation (Study 2).

Discussion

Study 2 demonstrates that the effect generalizes to a clearly non-gifting context, in which one’s friend provides money for their own product—suggesting that the effect is not driven entirely by relational considerations and gift-giving norms. Furthermore, the desire to avoid appearing to have bad taste is one self-presentational reason for this self–other discrepancy.

Study 3: Choosing for a Non-Judgmental Other

Study 3 tests a boundary condition, examining whether the effect is mitigated when choosing for a nonjudgmental other. If the other person is nonjudgmental about product choices that others make, the logic is that this person is unlikely to judge you negatively based on what you choose for them, lowering self-presentational concerns. In addition, to provide confirmatory replication of the exploratory mediation in Study 2, Study 3 measures the motive to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products and tests it in a single mediator model (as pre-registered).

Finally, we also measured individual differences in choosers’ self-monitoring tendencies in terms of their ability to modify their self-presentation. Self-monitoring captures the tendency to attend to social judgment cues of what is appropriate and to manage one’s behaviors and self-presentation (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984; Snyder, 1974). We thus examined whether choosers, more able to alter their self-presentational behaviors, would be more likely to show a discrepancy between choice for self and a friend (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984; Snyder, 1974).

Method

Study 3 was pre-registered (https://aspredicted.org/2nv4h.pdf). Participants (N = 607; 54.9% female, 44.8% male, 0.3% other; M_age = 38.48) from MTurk were randomly assigned to choose for self, other, or a nonjudgmental other. Depending on condition, participants first listed their own, a friend’s, or a nonjudgmental friend’s first name. In the nonjudgmental friend condition, we specified that a nonjudgmental friend is “a friend who does not tend to be judgmental about product choices that other people make.” Participants then chose a coffee shop gift card for the person whose name they listed. Participants were told that one randomly selected participant may be contacted using their worker ID so that the selected gift card could be sent to them (or their friend, depending on condition).

All participants then indicated their preference between two coffee gift card options representing a quality-quantity trade-off (trade-off depicted with an attribute table): 1 = definitely Coffee Chain A gift card to 6 = definitely Coffee Chain B gift card where Coffee Chain A was the high-quantity option (i.e., six drinks, 3/5-star quality) and Coffee Chain B was the high-quality option (i.e., three drinks, 5/5-star quality).

Thereafter, all participants responded to one mediator item: “As you were making a choice about which coffee shop gift card to choose for ‘yourself’ or ‘your friend,’ to what extent were you trying to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products?” (1 = not at all to 7 = very much so). They also completed the six-point seven-item ability to modify self-presentation subscale (α = .89) of the Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984).

Results

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on preference for quality over quantity was significant, F(2, 604) = 9.42, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .030. As in Studies 1 and 2, the effect of choosing for self versus “regular” other was significant, such that participants were more likely to prefer quality when choosing for a friend versus oneself (M_other = 5.04, SD = 1.52 vs. M_self = 4.52, SD = 1.84; p = .003, 95% CI_difference = [.17, .87], d = .31). As predicted, this effect was no longer significant when the friend was nonjudgmental (M_{nonjudgmental_other} = 4.29, SD = 1.92 vs. M_self = 4.52, SD = 1.84; p = .199, 95% CI_difference = [–.57, .12], d = .12). Because the self and nonjudgmental other conditions were not significantly different, we followed our pre-registration and collapsed across those two conditions for the remaining analyses (mediation and moderation).

We then conducted a mediation analysis in which wanting to avoid appearing to have bad taste was entered in a mediation model (Hayes, 2013), with choice recipient (1 = other, 0 = self or nonjudgmental other) as the predictor and quality-quantity preference as the outcome. The mediation analysis replicated Study 2’s findings (95% CI = [.15, .36]). Choosing for other (vs. self or nonjudgmental other) heightened the motive to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products (B = 1.13, SE = .19, p < .001; path a). When the motive to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products and choice recipient were both entered as simultaneous predictors of preference, the motive to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products increased choosing quality over quantity (B = .22, SE = .03, p < .001; path b) and the choice recipient effect was mitigated (path c’: B = .38, SE = .15, p = .011; path c: B = .63, SE = .16, p < .001).

Finally, a 2 (other vs. self + nonjudgmental other) × ability to modify self-presentation (mean-centered) analysis on preference for quality over quantity did not reveal a significant interaction, F(1, 603) = 1.16, p = .282, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .002. Although the pattern was as anticipated, with the effect appearing stronger among those higher in the ability to modify self-presentation,³ this interaction was not significant (p = .282) and thus we do not overinterpret it.

Discussion

Study 3 identified another boundary condition, showing that the effect was eliminated when choosing for a nonjudgmental other. This boundary condition, along with the mediation findings, is consistent with a self-presentation account in terms of wanting to avoid signaling bad taste. Although we did not find significant moderation by the chooser’s ability to modify self-presentation and thus hesitate to overinterpret, the pattern was such that the effect appeared larger among people high in the ability to modify self-presentation.

Study 4: Choosing for a Highly Valued Versus Lowly Valued Other

Study 4 tests another boundary condition, examining whether the discrepancy in choosing for self versus other is mitigated when choosing for someone whose judgment one is unlikely to care about. Specifically, we vary whether the participant is choosing for self, a highly valued other, or a lowly valued other. We predict that the effect will arise when choosing for a highly valued other (which most friends are), as people act to avoid others’ negative judgments the more that they care about others’ evaluations (Schlenker & Leary, 1982), whereas the effect will be mitigated when choosing for a lowly valued other whose judgment might not matter to choosers.

Therefore, interestingly, although one might intuitively expect people to treat themselves and highly valued others more similarly than they treat themselves and lowly valued others, we predict that, in the context of making quality-quantity trade-offs, people may ironically treat themselves and lowly valued others more similarly as self-presentational concerns prompting quality choice for others may be lessened when choosing for either self or lowly valued others. Finally, as in Study 3, we again measured the motive to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products as a mediator.

Method

Study 4 was pre-registered (https://aspredicted.org/er8rn.pdf). Participants (N = 456; 50.2% female; M_age = 39.24; M_{household_income} = US$67,870) from MTurk were randomly assigned to choose for self, highly valued other, or lowly valued other.

In the choosing-for-self condition, participants read, “Imagine that you are at the store, and you need to buy a bottle of soap for yourself. Which do you purchase for yourself with the $5 you brought for this purchase?” Participants in the choosing for highly valued other condition were asked to “Think of a specific person, who is very close to you and whom you particularly value as a friend. . .” and participants in the choosing for lowly valued other condition were asked to “Think of a specific person, who is not very close to you and whom you do not particularly value as a friend. . .” Participants in both choosing-for-other conditions then read, “Imagine that you are at the store, and you need to buy a bottle of soap for this other person. Which do you purchase for this other person with the $5 you brought for this purchase?” All participants then indicated their preference between two soap bottle options (1 = definitely a 16 oz. bottle of lower quality soap for $5 to 7 = definitely an 8 oz. bottle of high quality soap for $5) and responded to a one-item mediator: “As you were making a choice about which soap to purchase for ‘yourself’ or ‘your friend,’ to what extent were you trying: to avoid appearing to have bad taste in products?” (1 = not at all to 7 = very much so).

Results

A one-way ANOVA on preference for quality over quantity was significant, F(2, 453) = 21.45, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .087. The effect of choosing for self versus highly valued other was significant, such that participants were more likely to prefer quality when choosing for a highly valued other versus oneself (M_{highly valued_other} = 5.63, SD = 1.78 vs. M_self = 4.24, SD = 2.16; p < .001, 95% CI_difference = [.94, 1.84], d = .70). This self–other discrepancy no longer existed when the other was lowly valued (M_{lowly valued_other} = 4.43, SD = 2.07 vs. M_self = 4.24, SD = 2.16; p = .413, 95% CI_difference = [–.26, .64], d = .09). As pre-registered, because the self and lowly valued other were not significantly different in terms of choice, we collapsed across them for the mediation analysis.

Wanting to avoid appearing to have bad taste was entered into a mediation model (Hayes, 2013) with choice recipient (1 = highly valued other, 0 = self or lowly valued other) as the predictor and quality-quantity choice preference as the outcome. The mediation analysis replicated the finding in Study 3 (95% CI = [.15, .46]), with the paths being in the same patterns as in Study 3.

Discussion

Study 4 demonstrates another boundary condition consistent with a self-presentation account: The discrepancy in choosing for self and other was evident when choosing for a highly valued other, as one presumably cares more about avoiding conveying bad taste in products when choosing for this person. By contrast, this discrepancy was not evident when choosing for a lowly valued other. Ironically, people treat themselves and lowly valued others similarly in this context, treating highly valued others differently.

Study 5: Quality-Quantity Versus Flavor-Quantity Trade-Offs

Study 5 tests whether the discrepancy in choices for self versus others is attributable to the quality aspect, the quantity aspect, or differences in cost-per-unit, by distinguishing between quality-quantity versus flavor-quantity trade-offs. Our self-presentational account suggests that it is concerns about not choosing lower quality for others, which drives different choices for others (vs. self). To further test this account, we draw on the distinction between quality-based differences (involving vertical or ordinally based differences in which some products may be better than others) and flavor-based differences (involving horizontal or nominally based differences in which products are differentiated but in ways that do not indicate that they are better or worse than other products; P. J. Liu et al., 2020; Spiller & Belogolova, 2017). Varying both whether people choose for self versus other and whether people are making a quality-quantity or flavor-quantity trade-off, we test whether the self–other difference occurs for the quality-quantity trade-off but is mitigated for the flavor-quantity trade-off. Our theory predicts that flavor-based differences attenuate the effect as a different flavor does not signal bad taste: Flavor differences (unlike quality differences) are idiosyncratic and do not suggest that one variation of a product is better or worse than any other variation. In addition, we set up Study 5’s stimuli such that the smaller option always had a higher cost-per-unit than the larger option (with the differential cost-per-unit attributed to differences in quality versus flavor), such that we can test whether the quality aspect underlies the effect, rather than alternative explanations wherein the effect is driven by people choosing the higher cost-per-unit item more so for others or the higher quantity item more so for themselves.

Method

Study 5 was pre-registered (https://aspredicted.org/68ki3.pdf). Participants (N = 1,204; 52.0% female, 46.5% male, 1.5% other; M_age = 32.68; M_{household_income} = US$71,986)⁴ from Prolific Academic were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (target: self, other) × 2 (trade-off: quality-quantity, flavor-quantity) between-subjects design.

In the choosing-for-self condition, participants read, “Imagine that you are at the store, and you need to buy a bottle of olive oil for yourself.” In the choosing-for-other condition, participants read, “Imagine that you are at the store and you need to buy a bottle of olive oil for your friend.” Thereafter, participants read a scenario adapted from P. J. Liu et al. (2020) and Spiller and Belogolova (2017), manipulating whether they made a quality-quantity or a flavor-quantity trade-off. Specifically, participants read,

You are buying from an olive oil producer, called Olivia’s Olive Oil. Olivia’s Olive Oil produces two olive oils: Full Olivia (FO) and Subtle Olivia (SO). After each harvest, the olives are divided into two different groups depending on the [based on condition: quality, flavor] of the olive oil that they are expected to produce. In other words, the olive oils have different qualities. Some olive oils have a more subtle, mild flavor and other olive oils have a stronger flavor, which is considered [based on condition: “to be higher quality (a better grade)” or “different (not necessarily better or worse)”].

Participants then indicated which they would purchase for themselves or their friend with the $10 they brought for this purchase (1 = definitely a 16 oz. bottle of Subtle Olivia for $10 to 7 = definitely an 8 oz. bottle of Full Olivia for $10).

Results

A 2 (target: self, other) × 2 (trade-off quality-quantity, flavor-quantity) ANOVA on preference revealed a significant main effect of target, F(1, 1200) = 12.20, p <.001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .010, a significant main effect of trade-off, F(1, 1200) = 57.89, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .046, and a marginally significant interaction, F(1, 1200) = 2.71, p < .100, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .002; see Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The effect of choosing for self versus other, when making a quality-quantity trade-off versus a flavor-quantity trade-off (Study 5).

Planned contrasts showed that, when making a quality-quantity trade-off, participants were significantly more likely to prefer quality when choosing for a friend versus oneself, M_other = 4.55, SD = 2.15 vs. M_self = 3.90, SD = 2.29; F(1, 1200) = 13.26, p < .001, 95% CI_difference = [.30, .99], d = .29, replicating the prior studies. By contrast, this effect was no longer significant when making a flavor-quantity trade-off, M_other = 3.38, SD = 2.15 vs. M_self = 3.15, SD = 2.11; F(1, 1200) = 1.70, p = .193, 95% CI_difference = [–.12, .58], d = .11.

Discussion

Study 5 shows a boundary condition wherein the self–other discrepancy in choices occurs when making a quality-quantity trade-off, but not a flavor-quantity trade-off. These findings further support the notion that peoples’ concern about avoiding conveying bad taste in products (not different taste in products) when choosing for others underlies the effect. These findings also indicate that it is the quality aspect of the quality-quantity trade-off that underlies the effect, rather than the desire to always choose the higher cost-per-unit option for others or to always choose the higher quantity option for oneself.

General Discussion

This research contributes to understanding a fundamental question in social psychology: Do people treat themselves and others similarly or differently? Across five studies, we document a robust self–other discrepancy in which people are generally more likely to choose quality over quantity when choosing for others (vs. self). This effect generalizes to clearly non-gifting contexts, and mediation and boundary conditions support a model in which self-presentational concerns involving appearing to have bad taste in products are one underlying reason for the effect.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This research offers two main theoretical contributions. The first main contribution is to understanding how choices for others differ from choices for the self when making quality-quantity trade-offs. There is one article we are aware of documenting gift-giving norms, which found that gift recipients preferred to receive, for instance, two bottles of inexpensive wine, relative to gift givers who preferred to give one bottle of expensive wine (Teigen et al., 2005). Like Teigen et al. (2005), we also examine quality-quantity trade-offs. However, building on and extending their work, we examine people choosing for themselves (vs. others) and show that this finding represents a broader phenomenon beyond gift-giving, including cases when others pay for their own purchase.

The second main contribution is to understanding why, and especially when, choices for others differ from choices for the self. Indeed, we identify three boundary conditions consistent with a self-presentation account—showing that the effect is mitigated when the recipient is nonjudgmental, when the chooser does not value the recipient, and when a flavor-quantity trade-off is involved rather than a quality-quantity trade-off. This last boundary condition is especially important because it also sheds light on the uniqueness of the quality-quantity trade-off and addresses alternative explanations (e.g., people always seek higher cost-per-unit products for others than for themselves, or people always seek larger quantity products for themselves than for others).

Finally, in terms of practical implications, our research offers guidance for people as they manage everyday decisions of what to purchase not just for themselves but also for other people in their lives. In particular, people ought to be aware that there is a robust tendency to overweight quality over quantity in their decisions for friends, relative to their decision for themselves. Thus, they may want to adjust their weighting of quantity upward when choosing for friends. Likewise, as decisions about quality-quantity trade-offs may often arise in the context of asking friends to perform everyday favors, people requesting such favors should be explicit in expressing their desire for quantity (vs. quality) if that is the case or to let their friends know that they are not judgmental of product choices that others make for them. Otherwise, they should be aware that their friends are likely to overweigh quality over quantity when choosing for them.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Our research has limitations that offer multiple avenues for future investigation. One avenue is to examine other boundary conditions. For instance, our research focused on choices for others who are friends, consistent with prior research that primarily or exclusively examined choices for friends (Choi et al., 2006; Laran, 2010). We also focused on friends to more cleanly examine choices for self versus those for others, as people are less likely to share products with friends than with family members (Belk, 2010). However, future research might examine choices for family members with whom people share products (e.g., a bottle of olive oil) and more generally, quality-quantity trade-offs in joint consumption contexts. Indeed, a future direction could entail examining how dyads resolve quality-quantity trade-offs when choosing together. One possibility is that the increased number of individuals making the choice together heightens practical concerns with having enough quantity, mitigating self-presentational concerns associated with choosing lower quality, higher quantity options.

Another potential direction for future work is to examine generalizability as a function of the importance of thrift concerns among choosers and recipients. For instance, all of our studies were conducted with U.S. participants, and there is some evidence that the importance of thrift has declined culturally in America, over time (Tucker, 1991). To the extent that there may be cultures in which the self-presentational value of signaling thrift is stronger than the self-presentational value of signaling good taste through quality, perhaps the self–other discrepancy may be mitigated (or perhaps reversed).

In addition, future research can examine whether the effect requires people to believe that their friends are (or will become) aware that they were making a quality-quantity trade-off when choosing for them. Our studies left the friend’s consideration set awareness unspecified. In Study 1, people likely assumed that their friends were aware of the consideration set, due to both people taking the study together. In the other studies, it is possible that people may imagine their friend’s reaction during the choosing process and thus, imagine the self-presentational consequences of conveying poor taste by choosing quantity over quality for their friend. Alternatively, because the choice options themselves have descriptors that connote lower quality (e.g., store brand with a lower quality rating or star rating) or higher quality (e.g., name brand with a higher quality or star rating), choosers may feel that the lower quality descriptor conveys poor taste even if their friend is not aware that they were making a quality-quantity trade-off. Whereas quantity may be less evaluable to others in the absence of explicit knowledge of the consideration set, the quality dimension may be highly evaluable in these studies and thus people may still choose the quality option for others even if they assume others will be unaware of the consideration set.

Because quality information was depicted explicitly in this research, future research might vary the extent to which quality is depicted explicitly (e.g., star ratings or other ranking systems) versus assumed (e.g., as with differing cost-per-unit and a store vs. name brand). In the latter case, some “smart shoppers” (Atkins & Kim, 2012) might perceive name-brand products with higher cost-per-unit as ones that do not add additional quality. Among such consumers, perhaps the discrepancy between choices for self and other would weaken, as cost-per-unit differences would be attributed to horizontal rather than vertical aspects.

Although we focused on a broad self-presentational account, we also recognize that the key effect may be multiply determined and that there are nuances within self-presentation wherein various aspects of self-presentational concerns may be more or less salient based on a specific context. Indeed, we share the view expressed elsewhere that psychological phenomena are often multiply determined (P. J. Liu et al., 2020; Pham, 2013). Thus, while we view self-presentation as one broad process underlying the effect, there may also be other processes at play to varying degrees depending on the context.

One potential alternative mechanism is based on construal level theory (CLT; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2010). According to CLT, when consumers are in a more abstract mind-set, such as when they are choosing for a more psychologically distant other, then they should choose more desirable over feasible attributes; by contrast, when consumers are in a more concrete mind-set, such as when they are choosing for a psychologically close other, then they should choose more feasible over desirable attributes (Baskin et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2013). Because desirability captures quality, in the context of the quality-quantity trade-off, CLT also leads to the prediction that choosing for another person (vs. oneself) should lead to favoring quality (vs. quantity), compared with when choosing for self. However, CLT also predicts that choosing for a lowly valued friend (who is even more psychologically distant) than choosing for a highly valued friend (who is more psychologically close) would also lead to favoring quality (vs. quantity). Yet, this is the opposite of what we find in Study 4. Thus, we suggest that a CLT-based account cannot entirely explain the present findings. Relatedly, another mechanism related to psychological distance is based on promotion focus (Higgins, 2000), as greater psychological distance has been tied to greater promotion focus (Mogilner et al., 2008; Pennington & Roese, 2003; Polman, 2012). In the context of choosing for others versus self, Polman (2012) drew on the link between psychological difference and promotion/prevention to propose that when choosing for others (vs. self), people exhibited more of a promotion focus (vs. prevention focus), such that they exhibited different choice overload effects. Study 4’s findings suggest that differences in promotion focus as driven by psychological distance do not appear to explain our key effect. However, future research might more fully examine the potential roles of psychological distance and promotion focus; possibly, if choosing for a stranger instead of a lowly valued other, we might observe some role of psychological distance and promotion focus.

Another potential underlying process is based on relationship signaling, wherein consumers choose quality over quantity for others versus self to signal the closeness of their relationship rather than to avoid signaling bad taste. We suggest that the fact that the effect occurs even in clearly non-gifting contexts, such as when using the other person’s money (e.g., Study 2), suggests that relationship-signaling considerations are not the sole process at play. However, it is possible that relationship-signaling considerations do play some role. Although speculative, considering the effect sizes of the key effect across the five studies (i.e., not the conditions examining boundaries in Studies 3 to 5), we find that the effect size (Cohen’s d) in two of the studies is approximately double the effect size in the other three studies. Specifically, the effect size is d = .56 in Study 1 (when choosing for one’s dyad partner, perhaps a close friend with whom one is walking together) and d = .70 in Study 4 (when choosing for one’s highly valued friend). Whereas in Studies 2 (d = .29), 3 (d = .31), and 5 (d = .29), perhaps people thought naturally of a friend who came to mind quickly, but not necessarily a highly close or valued friend. Again, these observations are highly speculative as other factors differed across the studies. However, these initial observations suggest that relationship signaling may play some role in the effect, alongside self-presentational concerns. A relationship-signaling account might also relate to a self-presentation account to the extent that people may care more about self-presentation to people that they value more (with whom they want to foster a close relationship). Future research may thus vary relational goals and also gauge the relational consequences of receiving quality versus quantity options, building on a separate literature on the closeness consequences of receiving choices in gift-giving (Chan & Mogilner, 2017; Rim et al., 2019)—or sharing in choices with others (Lowe & Haws, 2014; Min et al., 2018).

Finally, self-presentation is a relatively broad process and, herein, we examined two aspects: not wanting to convey bad taste in products and not wanting to seem cheap, with the former appearing to be a stronger driver. However, the relative strength of these two aspects of self-presentational concerns may vary across individuals and contexts, and there are also other aspects of self-presentation that could be at play. For example, there may also be nuances in terms of wanting to convey a positive impression (e.g., to convey greater expertise or a higher status), rather than to avoid conveying a negative impression. Although some prior research suggests that negative self-presentational concerns often dominate over positive self-presentational concerns (e.g., P. J. Liu et al., 2020), these and other underlying processes warrant future investigation.

In addition, the role of self-presentation—and examining its various aspects—may also be incorporated in future work to understand why and when other differences in choices for self and other occur. For instance, prior research finds that people choose more indulgent, calorically dense products (vs. healthier, less calorically dense products) for others (Laran, 2010), holding quantity constant. One reason might be that people view indulgent foods as more accommodating to a wide variety of tastes, thus mitigating self-presentational concerns involving signaling bad taste, whereas liking for healthy foods may be more heterogeneous and thus pose concerns about signaling bad taste. As another example, prior research finds that people choose greater variety for others than for themselves (Choi et al., 2006). One reason might be that greater variety mitigates self-presentational considerations associated with any single product, as prior research on choices for the self found that public (vs. private) contexts increased variety-seeking (Ratner & Kahn, 2002). Future work might thus build on the present work by examining when and why other differences in choices for self versus other occur when making various trade-offs, in both private and public contexts, and with attention to self-presentation among other processes.

Supplemental Material

Liu_Online_appendix – Supplemental material for The Quality Versus Quantity Trade-Off: Why and When Choices for Self Versus Others Differ

Supplemental material, Liu_Online_appendix for The Quality Versus Quantity Trade-Off: Why and When Choices for Self Versus Others Differ by Peggy J. Liu and Ernest Baskin in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kate Min, Steven Shepherd, and Cheryl Wakslak for helpful comments on a prior version of this article. The authors also thank research assistants at St. Joseph’s University for assistance with Study 1.

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: The authors thank the University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business and Saint Joseph’s University for financial funding for this research.

ORCID iDs

Peggy J. Liu

Ernest Baskin

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

Notes

References

Achenreiner

G. B.

John

D. R.

(2003). The meaning of brand names to children: A developmental investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 205–219.

Alferes

V. R.

Kenny

D. A.

(2009). SPSS programs for the measurement of nonindependence in standard dyadic designs. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 47–54.

Ashworth

Darke

P. R.

Schaller

(2005). No one wants to look cheap: Trade-offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentives to redeem coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 295–306.

Atkins

K. G.

Kim

Y. K.

(2012). Smart shopping: Conceptualization and measurement. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40, 360–375.

Baskin

Wakslak

C. J.

Trope

Novemsky

(2014). Why feasibility matters more to gift receivers than to givers: A construal-level approach to gift giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 169–182.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.

Belk

R. W.

(2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.

Blair

Roese

N. J.

(2013). Balancing the basket: The role of shopping basket composition in embarrassment. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 676–691.

Cavanaugh

L. A.

(2016). Consumer behavior in close relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 101–106.

10.

Chan

Mogilner

(2017). Experiential gifts foster stronger social relationships than material gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 913–931.

11.

Choi

Kim

B. K.

Choi

(2006). Variety-seeking tendency in choice for others: Interpersonal and intrapersonal causes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 590–595.

12.

Dahl

D. W.

Manchanda

R. V.

Argo

J. J.

(2001). Embarrassment in consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 473–481.

13.

Elliott

Leonard

(2004). Peer pressure and poverty: Exploring fashion brands and consumption symbolism among children of the “British poor.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 347–359.

14.

Erickson

G. M.

Johansson

J. K.

(1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 195–199.

15.

Galak

Givi

Williams

E. F.

(2016). Why certain gifts are great to give but not to get: A framework for understanding errors in gift giving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 380–385.

16.

Gino

Flynn

F. J.

(2011). Give them what they want: The benefits of explicitness in gift exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 915–922.

17.

Gneezy

Lauga

D. O.

(2014). A reference-dependent model of the price–quality heuristic. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 153–164.

18.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.

19.

Goodban

(1985). The psychological impact of being on welfare. Social Service Review, 59, 403–422.

20.

Gunasti

Baskin

(2018). Is a $200 Nordstrom gift card worth more or less than a $200 Gap gift card? The asymmetric valuations of luxury gift cards. Journal of Retailing, 94, 380–392.

21.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

22.

Higgins

E. T.

(2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.

23.

Keltner

Buswell

B. N.

(1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 250–270.

24.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). The analysis of dyadic data. Guilford Press.

25.

Krishna

Herd

K. B.

Aydınoğlu

N. Z.

(2015). Wetting the bed at twenty-one: Embarrassment as a private emotion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 473–486.

26.

Laran

(2010). Goal management in sequential choices: Consumer choices for others are more indulgent than personal choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 304–314.

27.

Leary

M. R.

(2019). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Routledge.

28.

Lennox

R. D.

Wolfe

R. N.

(1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349–1364.

29.

Levin

I. P.

Johnson

R. D.

(1984). Estimating price-quality tradeoffs using comparative judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 593–600.

30.

Liberman

Trope

(1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.

31.

Liu

P. J.

Dallas

S. K.

Fitzsimons

G. J.

(2019). A framework for understanding consumer choices for others. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 407–434.

32.

Liu

P. J.

McFerran

Haws

K. L.

(2020). Mindful matching: Ordinal versus nominal attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 57, 134–155.

33.

Liu

Polman

Liu

Jiao

(2018). Choosing for others and its relation to information search. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147, 65–75.

34.

Lowe

M. L.

Haws

K. L.

(2014). (Im)moral support: The social outcomes of parallel self-control decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 489–505.

35.

Lowrey

T. M.

Otnes

C. C.

Ruth

J. A.

(2004). Social influences on dyadic giving over time: A taxonomy from the giver’s perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 547–558.

36.

Xie

(2013). Desirability or feasibility: Self-other decision-making differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 144–155.

37.

Mandel

(2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 30–40.

38.

Miller

R. S.

(1996). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life. Guilford Press.

39.

Min

K. E.

Liu

P. J.

Kim

(2018). Sharing extraordinary experiences fosters feelings of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 107–121.

40.

Mogilner

Aaker

J. L.

Pennington

G. L.

(2008). Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 670–681.

41.

Pennington

G. L.

Roese

N. J.

(2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563–576.

42.

Pham

M. T.

(2013). The seven sins of consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 411–423.

43.

Polman

(2012). Effects of self-other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 980–993.

44.

Polman

(2020). Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 77, 102184.

45.

Pronin

Lin

D. Y.

Ross

(2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.

46.

Pronin

Olivola

C. Y.

Kennedy

K. A.

(2008). Doing unto future selves as you would do unto others: Psychological distance and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 224–236.

47.

Ratner

R. K.

Kahn

B. E.

(2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246–257.

48.

Rim

Min

K. E.

Liu

P. J.

Chartrand

T. L.

Trope

(2019). The gift of psychological closeness: How feasible versus desirable gifts reduce psychological distance to the giver. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45, 360–371.

49.

Ruessmann

J. K.

Topolinski

(2020). Economic decisions for others are more favorable for close than distant clients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46, 393–407.

50.

Schlenker

B. R.

Leary

M. R.

(1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669.

51.

Sethi

(2000). New product quality and product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–14.

52.

Shrout

P. E.

Fleiss

J. L.

(1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.

53.

Simpson

J. A.

Griskevicius

Rothman

A. J.

(2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 304–314.

54.

Snyder

(1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.

55.

Spiller

S. A.

Belogolova

(2017). On consumer beliefs about quality and taste. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 970–991.

56.

Spiller

S. A.

Fitzsimons

Lynch

McClelland

(2012). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 277–288.

57.

Steffel

LeBoeuf

R. A.

(2014). Overindividuation in gift giving: Shopping for multiple recipients leads givers to choose unique but less preferred gifts. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1167–1180.

58.

Stilley

K. M.

Inman

J. J.

Wakefield

K. L.

(2010). Planning to make unplanned purchases? The role of in-store slack in budget deviation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 264–278.

59.

Tangney

J. P.

(1999). The self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment and pride. In Dalgleish

Power

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 541–568). Wiley.

60.

Teigen

K. H.

Olsen

M. V. G.

Solås

O. E.

(2005). Giver–receiver asymmetries in gift preferences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 125–144.

61.

Trope

Liberman

(2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.

62.

Tucker

D. M.

(1991). The decline of thrift in America: Our cultural shift from saving to spending. Greenwood.

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

1.31 MB