This research introduces a framework wherein consumers take on “requestor” or “responder” roles in making joint consumption decisions. The authors document a robust preference expression asymmetry wherein “requestors” soliciting others’ consumption preferences (e.g., “Where do you want to go for dinner?”) desire preference expressions (e.g., “Let’s go to this restaurant”), whereas “responders” instead do not express preferences (e.g., “Anywhere is fine with me”). This asymmetry generalizes under a broad set of situations and occurs because the requestor and responder roles differ in their foci. Compared to responders, requestors are more focused on mitigating the difficulty of arriving at a decision, whereas compared to requestors, responders are more focused on conveying likability by appearing easygoing. Responders thus behave suboptimally, incurring a “preference cost” (when masking preferences) and a “social friction cost” (requestors favor responders who express preferences). Requestors can elicit preference expression by conveying their own dislike of decision making, which increases responders’ focus on mitigating decision difficulty. The authors conclude by discussing the framework’s contributions to looking “under the hood” of joint consumption decisions.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.