Doing Worse but Feeling Better: Consequences of Collective Choice Nuno Jose Lopes, University of Navarra Elena Reutskaja, IESE Business School
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Association for Consumer Research, University of Minnesota Duluth, 115 Chester Park, 31 West College Street Duluth, MN 55812 Doing Worse But Feeling Better: Consequences of Collective Choice Nuno Jose Lopes, University of Navarra Elena Reutskaja, IESE Business School Two studies demonstrate that the decision process of a group of two people is essentially cooperative. This leads dyad members to sacrifice their favorite alternatives, making them choose an alternative with an inferior value comparatively to individuals. Additionally, and contrary to individuals, dyads’ decision process is dominated by positive emotion. [to cite]: Nuno Jose Lopes and Elena Reutskaja (2018) ,"Doing Worse But Feeling Better: Consequences of Collective Choice", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 46, eds. Andrew Gershoff, Robert Kozinets, and Tiffany White, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 690-391. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2411731/volumes/v46/NA-46 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Doing Worse but Feeling Better: Consequences of Collective Choice Nuno Jose Lopes, University of Navarra, Spain Elena Reutskaja, IESE Business School, Spain EXTENDED ABSTRACT taxing decision such as choosing from a large choice set. It had the participation of 42 individuals (36% women) and 44 dyads (dyad Conceptualization members knew each other; 51% women), between-subjects. Movies Consumer decisions are often made together with other people was the only category. Procedure: each participant alone started by (Davis 1976). Nonetheless, marketing scholars typically investigate evaluating every alternative on the same scale as study 1. Then, to set consumers as independent individuals who chose alone, leaving joint participants’ emotions to neutrality they watched a 4-minutes docu- decisions under-researched (Bagozzi 2012). However, choosing with mentary. Afterwards, from a choice set with 30 movies participants others differs substantially from choosing alone. This article com- had to select their favorite to watch briefly in the end. This was done pares the implications on decision outcome and emotions felt when either individually or in dyads. Then, a short questionnaire was filled. either an individual or a group of two people chose from a set with The selection and questionnaire tasks were repeated six times. Final- many alternatives. ly, one of the movies selected as favorite was watched for 5-minutes. Group decision is not the averaging of its members (Zajonc Wo- Along study 2, the emotions of each participant were recorded losin, and Wolosin 1972). When several people choose together, they every 35 milliseconds with an automated facial recognition software. frequently have different tastes and goals, which can lead them to This allowed1 to know the intensity (0 = minimum to 100 = maxi- disagreement. Despite this latent conflict, groups are typically still mum) of each of the six basic emotions: enjoyment, sadness, anger, able to reach a decision agreement. This is possible because collec- disgust, fear, and surprise (Ekman 1992). This information was then tive consumer decision is fundamentally cooperative in nature (Fish- aggregated in two-seconds’ intervals and the emotion with the high- er, Grégoire, and Murray 2011), which implies that conflicting pref- est average intensity along the interval was considered the dominant erences are overcome through self-sacrifice and mutual concessions one. Then, the dominant valence was coded as positive if the stron- (Corfman and Lehaman 1987). Therefore, knowing the consequenc- gest emotion was enjoyment, or negative if it was anger, sadness, es of cooperation and self-sacrifice on the value of the alternative disgust, or fear. Surprise was out of analysis as the literature still selected constitutes one of the contributions of the current article. debates its valence. Iyengar, Wells, and Schwartz (2006) demonstrated that indi- viduals who do better in taxing decisions can actually feel worse. Major Findings However, it is unclear whether these effects are also extended to col- Study 1 showed that dyads selected an item with an inferior lective choice. On one hand, research on individual decision-making value in comparison to individuals (Mdyad = 3.51, SDdyad = 1.26; Mind. 2 suggests that engaging in a difficult selection can lead to the experi- = 4.50, SDind. = 0.84; χ (1) = 63.85, p < .0001). This difference was ence of negative emotions (Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998). Given the consequence of dyad members giving up her top-rated alterna- that group decision might imply contradictory preferences which can tive, which implied an average sacrifice of 1.10 value points (SDdyad degenerate into affective conflict (Amason 1996), groups might ex- = 1.01). Nonetheless, dyads were not less satisfied with the option perience even stronger negative emotions than individuals. Never- selected comparatively to individuals (Mdyad = 7.78, SDdyad = 1.76; 2 theless, groups’ cooperative mindset and the fact that human beings Mind. = 7.97, SDind. = 1.80; χ (1) = 0.27, p = .602). Moreover, 69% of have a tendency to enjoy sharing an activity with others (Baumeis- the dyads behaved very cooperatively as in at least 2/3 of their selec- ter and Leary 1995; Raghunathan and Corfman 2006) could elicit tions (a) both dyad members conceded the same or (b) they engaged positive emotions in dyadic decision. Which of these drivers has a in sequential reciprocity (“You win now, I win next”). stronger influence on dyadic emotions experienced during choice is Besides replicating study 1 findings, study 2 revealed that still unknown in the consumer literature and is the other goal of the whereas individuals’ selection process was dominated by negative current article. emotions (73% of the two-seconds intervals), dyadic selection, on the contrary, was dominated by positive emotion (45% of the inter- Method vals). Proportion tests confirmed the differences between individuals Study 1 aimed to compare the subjective value of the alternative and dyads both for the negative (z = 44.85, p < .0001) and the posi- selected by individuals and dyads, and assess the magnitude of sac- tive (z = -34.22, p < .0001) dominant emotions. Moreover, study 2 rifice in collective decisions. Participants were randomly assigned to showed that while choosing, dyad members experienced a level of the individual or collective condition, between-subjects. They were enjoyment almost five times stronger than that of individuals (Mdyad 2 60 individuals (63% women) and 41 dyads (61% women; dyad mem- members = 26.13, SDdyad members = 15.44; Mind. = 5.67, SDind. = 8.34; χ (1) = bers did not know each other). Every choice set had 30 alternatives of 46.61, p < .0001). Level of dyad familiarity had no effect. the same category (poster, chocolate, ice cream, and desk lamp; ran- This article demonstrated that although dyads do worse in terms dom assignation and order). Procedure: first, each participant alone of selection outcome, they do not report a lower level of satisfaction. had to evaluate every alternative in the choice set (-5 = “I don’t like Furthermore, collective consumers feel better as they enjoy the selec- it at all” to +5 = I like it very much”). Afterwards, participants ticked tion process much more. which alternatives they would consider from the choice set, followed by the selection of the favorite alternative. Finally, a short question- REFERENCES naire was filled. This procedure was done three times. In the collec- Amason, Allen C. (1996), “Distinguishing the Effects of Functional tive condition, both the consideration and the selection stages were and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: done by dyad members together. Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams,” Academy The goal of Study 2 was to compare the valence of the domi- of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148. nant emotion experienced by individuals and dyads while making a Advances in Consumer Research 690 Volume 46, ©2018 Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 46) / 691 Bagozzi, Richard P. (2012), “Alternative Approaches for Thinking Fisher, Robert J., Yany Grégoire, and Kyle B. Murray (2011), About and Modeling Consumer Decisions in Relationships,” “The Limited Effects of Power on Satisfaction with Joint Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 315-319. Consumption Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary (1995), “The Need 21(3), 277-89. to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Iyengar, Sheena S., Rachael E. Wells, and Barry Schwartz (2006), Fundamental Human Motivation,” Psychological Bulletin, “Doing Better but Feeling Worse. Looking for the “Best” Job 117(3), 497-529. Undermines Satisfaction,” Psychological Science, 17(2), 143- Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce, and John W. Payne (1998), 50. “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Raghunathan, Rajagopal and Kim Corfman (2006), “Is Happiness Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217. Shared Doubled and Sadness Shared Halved? Social Influence Corfman, Kim P. and Donald R. Lehmann (1987), “Models of on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of Marketing Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: Research, 43(3), 386-394. An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Secisions,” Zajonc, Robert B.,