Inhibited from Bowling Alone...activities alone (i.e., unaccompanied by one or more com-panions) and...

Inhibited from Bowling Alone

REBECCA K. RATNERREBECCA W. HAMILTON

The present research demonstrates that consumers often feel inhibited from en-gaging in hedonic activities alone, especially when these activities are observableby others. When considering whether to engage in a hedonic and public activitysuch as going to a movie alone, individuals anticipate negative inferences fromothers about their social connectedness that reduce their interest in engaging inthe activity. Notably, consumers seem to overestimate how much their enjoymentof these activities depends on whether they are accompanied by a companion.Cues that attenuate consumers’ anticipation of negative inferences by making anactivity seem more utilitarian or by reducing the anticipated number of observerssystematically increases interest in engaging in unaccompanied public activities.

Keywords: social norms, inhibition, hedonic consumption, affective forecasting

Imagine a consumer who is alone for a weekend andthinking about how to spend her free time. The con-

sumer is interested in a new exhibit at a local museum, arestaurant that has just opened down the block, and amovie that is currently playing in theaters, and she is quitewilling to devote her time and money to these activities.Will she choose to go to the exhibit, check out the restau-rant, and see the movie by herself, or will the fact that theseenjoyable activities are publicly observable make her lesslikely to venture out on her own?

The questions we ask in this article are whether con-sumers inhibit themselves from engaging in certain kinds ofactivities alone (i.e., unaccompanied by one or more com-panions) and why this might be the case. In a collectivisticculture, which places high value on social cohesion,

consumers might be expected to feel reluctant to engage inleisure activities alone. However, in an individualistic cul-ture such as the United States, which highlights individualfreedom and autonomy, will consumers also feel reluctant toengage in some activities alone? These are important ques-tions because data suggest that more consumers are spend-ing more time alone than in the past. Notable recent findingsfrom sociology indicate that Americans are less likely tohave close confidants and are less likely to be members offormal organizations and clubs outside of work now thanthey used to be, leading to the conclusion that Americansare more often “bowling alone” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin,and Brashears 2006; Putnam 2000). Further, demographicchanges have led to more single adults as well as coupleswho face constraints on spending time together due to dual-career demands (Bolick 2011). Therefore, more peoplemight find themselves interested in engaging in consump-tion activities for which they lack activity partners.

Why might consumers veto certain activities more thanothers when they are alone? One reason is that certain activ-ities might be more enjoyable when engaged in with othersrather than alone. If consumers enjoy hedonic activitiesmore with others who share their reactions, they may chooseto wait until they have company for these activities(Raghunathan and Corfman 2006). The need to belong anddesire to share consumption experiences with others oftenleads consumers to seek out companionship (Baumeisterand Leary 1995, Raghunathan and Corfman 2006). Thismight be particularly true if the activities allow for conver-sation, such as a walk through a museum, dinner at a restau-rant, or travel in a foreign country, but they could also occur

Rebecca K. Ratner ([email protected]) is professor of market-

ing at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,

College Park, MD 20742. Rebecca W. Hamilton is professor of marketing

at the McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University,

Washington, DC 20057. The authors would like to thank the editor, asso-

ciate editor, and reviewers for helpful feedback on this research. The au-

thors also thank Rosie Ferraro for feedback on the manuscript as well as

Jordan Etkin, Anastasiya Pocheptsova, and seminar participants in the

University of Maryland Behavioral Lab and Hong Kong University of

Science and Technology, Dartmouth Tuck School of Business, and Johns

Hopkins marketing seminars for their helpful comments and suggestions

on this research.

Ann McGill and Darren Dahl served as editors and Darren Dahl served

as associate editor for this article.

Advance Access publication May 28, 2015

VC The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] � Vol. 42 � 2015

DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucv012

266

for experiences such as watching a movie where a con-sumer’s enjoyment could be impacted by the nonverbal re-actions of companions (Ramanathan and McGill 2007).

We propose that another reason solo consumers mightavoid certain activities is that they worry about negativeevaluations by others (Ajzen 1991; Dahl, Manchanda, andArgo 2001). These concerns would be more relevant forpublic activities such as watching a movie in a theater thanfor private activities such as watching a movie at home.They also may be more relevant for hedonic activities suchas watching a movie than for more utilitarian activitiessuch as grocery shopping. A consumer might think, “Whatwould others at the theater think if I were to attend thismovie alone? Would they infer that if I am alone, I couldnot find anyone to go with me? What a loner they wouldthink I am!” We propose that this combination of hedonicmotivation and public consumption of an activity combineto make consumers particularly likely to anticipate nega-tive inferences from others about their social connected-ness if they consume the activity alone. Thus, althoughenjoyment of watching a movie at home and watching amovie in a theater might be similarly boosted by sharingthe experience with a companion, anticipating negative in-ferences from others would make consumers much lesslikely to go to a movie at a theater alone (particularly at atime when the movie theater is expected to be full and thesolo consumption behavior observed by more people).

Avoiding certain activities when alone would have impor-tant implications for consumer well-being as well as formanagers. Consumers may refrain from engaging in enjoy-able activities that may be enriching even when consumedalone. Moreover, engaging in public solo activities might fa-cilitate social interaction with strangers, which can be enjoy-able (Dunn et al. 2007; Epley and Schroeder 2014) andwould allow individuals to develop new relationships.Inhibition from engaging in leisure activities alone alsowould have economic consequences if solo consumers avoidattending movies, concerts, restaurants, museum exhibits,plays, and other activities alone even though they would beprepared to invest both time and money to attend.

The present investigation explores this inhibition againstengaging in certain consumption activities alone. First, wediscuss related literature and develop our theoretical frame-work. We then present the results of five studies isolatingthe characteristics of activities that consumers avoid doingalone, highlighting the inference process that drives thisavoidance, examining the cross-cultural generality of thisphenomenon, and exploring cues that can attenuate thisavoidance. We conclude with a discussion of implicationsfor consumers and managers.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Changing demographics suggest the importance of un-derstanding how consumers make decisions about how to

spend time alone versus with others. Individuals are gettingmarried later, which has led to the number of single-personhouseholds growing to an all-time high (Bolick 2011;Klinenberg 2012). Numbers of close friends also seem tohave declined, with Americans reporting fewer close confi-dants now than they did 25 years ago (McPherson et al.2006). The number of people with whom consumers partic-ipate frequently in leisure activities is even lower than thenumber of confidants they report (Burt 1997). The numberof married consumers juggling dual careers has also in-creased, resulting in less time for shared leisure activities(Bolick 2011). These trends suggest that consumers willoften be confronted with a situation in which they are inter-ested in engaging in a leisure activity but lack an activitypartner.

Hedonic versus Utilitarian Activities

Which kinds of activities will be affected most by socialcontext? Research in psychology and consumer behaviorsuggests that social context may affect willingness to en-gage in hedonic activities more than utilitarian activities.For hedonic activities (e.g., watching a movie), enjoymentof the consumption experience is the primary motivationfor consumption, whereas for utilitarian activities (e.g., go-ing to the grocery store) accomplishing some other goal isthe primary motivation (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982).Consumers often enjoy experiences more when they areshared with others, especially when others share their reac-tion to the experience (Ragunathan and Corfman 1996;Ramanathan and McGill 2007). For example, consumersreported greater enjoyment in the presence of a confederatewho shared their reaction to stimuli than in the presence ofa confederate who did not share their reaction or exhibitedno reaction (Ragunathan and Corfman 1996). Even in theabsence of explicit verbal responses, emotional responsesconveyed nonverbally can increase enjoyment among con-sumers as they converge to these others’ responses(Ramanathan and McGill 2007). For utilitarian activities,the presence of others will not typically be needed to ac-complish the task (although there are some exceptions,such as when moving belongings into a new home). Thus,in general, consumers feel they need other people lesswhen they are working toward achievement-related goalsthan when they are focusing on emotional goals like enjoy-ment (Sellier and Morwitz 2011).

This reasoning suggests that if an individual lacks an ac-tivity partner, he or she might be more likely to forgo par-ticipating in a hedonic activity than to forgo a utilitarianactivity. If consumers anticipate deriving greater enjoy-ment from hedonic activities when they are with othersthan when they are alone, this should lead to a main effectof social context on interest in engaging in hedonic activi-ties. Such a main effect of social context on interest in he-donic activities could be explained rationally; systematic

RATNER AND HAMILTON 267

preferences for different activities based on social contextmay reflect consumers’ desire to maximize their utility.In contrast to this rational process of forgoing hedonicactivities while alone, we propose that individuals willbe more likely to avoid solo hedonic activities whenthey expect their behavior to be observed by manyothers than when they expect their behavior to be observedby few others. This is because they anticipate negative in-ferences by others if they engage in hedonic activitiesalone.

Anticipated Inferences from Others

Why might consumers expect negative evaluations fromothers if they engage in hedonic activities alone? One rea-son is that if most people anticipate greater enjoyment of ashared versus solo hedonic experience (e.g., someone totalk to while walking through a museum), most people willprefer to share hedonic activities with other people. Thus aplausible inference observers could make is that a con-sumer is alone because she could not find any companionsinterested in joining her, perhaps because she has few indi-viduals with whom she is socially connected. Anticipatingsuch inferences about one’s degree of social connectioncan be a powerful motivator for consumers to change theirbehavior (McFerran and Argo 2014). Thus if a consumeranticipates that others will make negative inferences abouther social connectedness as a result of her solo activity(i.e., “They will think I have no friends”), she may be lesslikely to engage in the hedonic activity alone.

If consumers anticipate negative inferences from othersfor engaging in hedonic activities such as going to a movieor out for dinner alone, this is likely to increase their reluc-tance to engage in these activities alone, especially whentheir behavior can be observed by others. A large body ofresearch indicates that individuals’ likelihood to engage ina given behavior is impacted by their beliefs about howothers will evaluate this behavior (Ajzen 1991). Such ef-fects are stronger when products are consumed publiclyrather than privately (Bearden and Etzel 1982). Thus a keytest will be whether consumers refrain more from engagingin hedonic activities alone when they think others wouldobserve their behavior. If a consumer’s anticipated enjoy-ment of the movie is influenced by the anticipated reac-tions of others, her interest in watching a movie in a publiccontext—the theater—should be affected more than her in-terest in watching a movie in a private context—at home.She should also feel more reluctant to go to the theateralone when the theater is relatively full and there are morepeople who can observe her solo consumption. We do notexpect consumers to anticipate negative inferences fromothers for engaging in utilitarian activities alone (indeed, itwould be reasonable to anticipate more negative inferencesif they refused to go to the dry cleaner alone than if theyvolunteered to complete such an errand alone).

It is important to consider other reasons why consumersmight be reluctant to engage in hedonic-public activitiesalone. One reason might be the greater status accorded tothose who are accompanied by a group of others (Bourdieu1986; McFerran and Argo 2014; Putnam 2000). Anotherpossible mechanism underlying a reluctance to engage insolitary behavior is the negative inferences one might drawabout the self. Although we agree that a self-signalingmechanism might explain reluctance to engage in hedonicactivities alone, we expect that social concerns would bemore likely than self-signaling concerns to vary across pri-vate versus public contexts. Finally, consumers mightknow from experience that they enjoy hedonic-public ac-tivities less when they participate in them alone versuswith others. If this is the case, then we should expect theirpredictions about how much they will enjoy these activitiesto be accurate. We test all three of these alternative mecha-nisms in our studies.

Ironically, we predict that the desire to have hedonicconsumption experiences accompanied by others mightlead solo consumers to shy away from hedonic activitiesthat take place in a social environment. This is unfortunatebecause the desire to share experiences with others mightotherwise lead solo consumers to pursue activities in a pub-lic venue where they can interact with others. Consumerswho seek to develop social connections or simply be in thecompany of others might be better off seeking out public-hedonic activities. Yet if solo consumers are concernedabout others’ reactions, they may decide not to take part inpotentially enjoyable activities that take place in a socialenvironment.

Social Context Guides Activity Preferences

In summary, we predict that reluctance to engage in pub-lic-hedonic activities alone will be a key determinant ofconsumers’ choices among activities. Consumers will besignificantly less interested in engaging in public-hedonicactivities alone than with others. In contrast, we do not ex-pect consumers to be more reluctant to engage in privatehedonic activities or public utilitarian activities alone thanwith others.

We propose that this effect is driven by consumers’ an-ticipation that others will infer they have few friends whenthey engage in hedonic-public activities alone. These antic-ipated negative inferences by others in the consumptioncontext will reduce both the individual’s predicted enjoy-ment of the activity and interest in engaging in the activityalone. In this framework, the concern is particularly whatothers in the consumption environment (e.g., others at therestaurant or movie theater) might think. Consumers mightalso think about what friends or family members will inferfrom their behavior, but we expect consumers to appreciatethat people close to them already have well-formed beliefsabout their social connections.

268 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

We further predict that cues that reduce the likelihood ofothers’ negative inferences will moderate these effects.For example, if consumers anticipate that others will drawnegative inferences more from solitary hedonic activitiesthat are public (and hence more observable) than those thatare private, activities that are private should disinhibit soloconsumption. Likewise, if consumers anticipate that otherswill draw negative inferences if they engage in hedonic butnot utilitarian activities alone, cues that make activitiesseem more utilitarian should attenuate the effect. Finally, ifconsumers are concerned about others’ negative infer-ences, these inferences should be more of a deterrent whenthere are many than when there are few observers in theconsumption context (e.g., when a movie theater is rela-tively full vs. relatively empty).

We present the results of five studies that test our keypredictions. Study 1 compares consumers’ interest in en-gaging in hedonic/public activities versus utilitarian/privateand hedonic/private activities alone or with others and ex-amines the inferences they believe others will draw if theyengage in these activities. In study 2, we examine con-sumers’ interest in consuming a public-hedonic experience(seeing a movie in a theater) alone versus with friendsacross three different cultures (United States, India, andChina) to test the generalizability of the effect. In study 3,we follow consumers through a real consumption experi-ence to test whether their forecasts about how muchthey will enjoy an experience alone (vs. with a companion)are accurate. Our final two studies examine disinhibition ofconsuming hedonic experiences alone. Study 4 testswhether a cue that an activity serves a utilitarian purposereduces anticipated negative inferences and therefore in-creases interest in the activity. Study 5 further tests the roleof others’ inferences by holding constant the activity (see-ing a movie in a theater) and asking participants to choosewhether they would prefer to have the experience whenthey think there will be more versus fewer observers.

STUDY 1: EFFECTS OF OBSERVABILITY,NATURE OF ACTIVITY, AND SOCIAL

CONTEXT ON INTEREST IN ACTIVITIES

In study 1, we manipulate whether participants considerengaging in an activity alone or with two or more compan-ions. We test several activities selected to be perceived asprivate or public and hedonic or utilitarian. This allows usto test whether consumers are more reluctant to engage inhedonic-public activities when they are alone compared towhen they are with others. The study also examines the in-ferences that participants expect others to make when theyengage in various activities either alone or with others, pro-viding insight into the process mechanism. To assess thegenerality of our effects, we measured several individualdifference variables.

Design, Stimuli, and Procedures

This study used a 2 (social context: alone vs. to-gether)� 3 (activity type: hedonic-private vs. hedonic-public vs. utilitarian-public)� 2 (replication of activitytype) mixed design in which social context was manipu-lated between subjects and the other factors were manipu-lated within subjects. Ninety-six US participants (53%male) ranging in age from 18 to 67 years (average age 37)completed the study on Mechanical Turk (mTurk) in ex-change for a small monetary payment.

Participants were randomly assigned to imagine doingeach of six activities alone or to imagine doing the activi-ties with two or more friends. Each participant consideredsix different activities: two hedonic-private activities(“Watch a movie at home,” “Play a video game on yourcomputer”), two hedonic-public activities (“Go to a restau-rant for dinner,” “Go to see a movie in a theater”), and twoutilitarian-public activities (“Go to the grocery store,” “Gofor a walk for exercise”).

Manipulation checks. For each activity, participantsrated the extent to which the activity is engaged in to ac-complish something or to experience pleasure or otheremotions (1¼Completely utilitarian, 6¼Completely he-donic) and the extent to which engaging in the activitywould be private or public (1¼Completely private,6¼Completely public).

Dependent measures. For each activity, participants re-ported how likely they would be to engage in the activity(1¼Not at all likely, 6¼Very likely) and how much theythought they would enjoy the activity (1¼Not at all,6¼Very much) either alone or with two or more friends,depending on the experimental condition to which they hadbeen assigned. Next, to measure participants’ beliefs aboutothers’ (negative) inferences, participants were asked whatother people would say if they observed them engaging inthe activity and were asked to guess how many friendsthey have (1¼That I have few friends, 6¼That I havemany friends). For example, participants in the alone con-dition were asked how many friends others would guessthey have if they went to a movie in a theater alone,whereas participants in the together condition were askedhow many friends others would guess they have if theywent to a movie in a theater with two or more friends.

Demographics and individual difference measures.After completing the dependent measures, all respondentscompleted several scales to test for relevant individual dif-ferences: the 18-item self-monitoring scale (Snyder andGangestad 1986; e.g., “I guess I put on a show to impressor entertain others,” “I have trouble changing my behaviorto suit different people and different situations”),Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale (e.g., “On the whole, Iam satisfied with myself,” “I feel that I have a numberof good qualities”), extroversion scale (Eysenck, and


Barrett 1985; e.g., “Are you a talkative person?,” “Do youlike mixing with people?”), and reported their gender, age,and whether they have siblings.

Results

Manipulation checks. A repeated-measures analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) with social context (alone vs. together)as a between-subjects factor and activity type (hedonic-pri-vate, hedonic-public, and utilitarian-public) and replicateas within-subjects factors indicated that the activities se-lected to be hedonic were rated by participants as more he-donic than those selected to be utilitarian (Mhedonic

public¼ 4.82 and Mhedonic private¼ 5.12 vs. Mutilitarian pub-

lic¼ 2.30, F(2, 188)¼ 291.10, p< .001). The main effectof replicate and the activity type� replicate interactionwere significant, indicating differences in perceptions ofspecific activities, but no other effects were significant(p values> .25). A similar ANOVA indicated thatthe activities selected to be public were rated by partici-pants as more public than those selected to be private(Mhedonic public¼ 4.93 and Mutilitarian public¼ 4.69 vs.Mhedonic private¼ 1.73, F(2, 186)¼ 291.10, p< .001).Again, the main effect of replicate and the activitytype� replicate interaction were significant, indicating dif-ferences in perceptions of specific activities, but no othereffects were significant (p values> .18).

Interest in activity. A repeated-measures ANOVA withsocial context as a between-subjects factor and activitytype and replicate as within-subjects factors was conductedon participants’ reported likelihood of participating in theactivity. A significant effect of activity type emerged (F(2,188)¼ 11.22, p< .001), qualified by the predicted activitytype� social context interaction (F(2, 188)¼ 82.45,p< .001; see table 1 and figure 1). Simple effects analysesrevealed that in the hedonic-private conditions, participantssaid they would be more likely to engage in the activityalone (M¼ 5.04) than together (M¼ 3.74), F(1,188)¼ 44.52, p< .001. Those in the utilitarian-public con-dition also indicated greater likelihood of engaging in theactivity alone (M¼ 5.08) than together (M¼ 3.55), F(1,188)¼ 61.57, p< .001. However, as predicted, participantsin the hedonic-public condition said they would be lesslikely to engage in the activity alone (M¼ 2.97) than to-gether (M¼ 4.62), F(1, 188)¼ 71.13, p< .001. In addition,significant activity type� replicate and activity type� so-cial context� replicate interactions emerged (F(2,188)¼ 12.60 and F(2, 188)¼ 18.00, respectively, pvalues< .001), indicating that although the predicted activ-ity type� social context interaction was obtained acrossreplicates, the effect was more pronounced for some repli-cates than others. No three-way interaction effects emergedbetween condition and the demographic variables and indi-vidual difference measures (self-monitoring, self-esteem,

extroversion, gender, age, siblings). We also entered thesevariables as covariates in our analyses, and the main effectof activity type and the activity type� social context inter-action remained significant.

Anticipated enjoyment. A repeated-measures ANOVAwas conducted on predicted enjoyment of the six activitiesto see whether this revealed a similar pattern of effects tothat obtained for likelihood of engaging in the activities. Asignificant effect of activity type emerged (F(2,186)¼ 7.78, p¼ .001), qualified by the predicted activitytype� social context interaction (F(2, 186)¼ 66.19,p< .001). Simple effects analyses revealed that partici-pants in the hedonic-private condition thought they wouldenjoy the activity more alone (M¼ 4.96) than together(M¼ 4.32), F(1, 186)¼ 12.36, p< .001. Those in the utili-tarian-public condition thought they would be as likely toenjoy the activity alone (M¼ 4.37) as together (M¼ 4.17),F(1, 186)¼ 1.14, not significant (NS). However, as pre-dicted, participants in the hedonic-public condition thoughtthey would enjoy the activity less alone (M¼ 3.09) than to-gether (M¼ 5.21), F(1, 186)¼ 135.83, p< .001. No signif-icant activity type� social context� replicate interactionemerged (F(2, 186)¼ 1.49, NS), indicating that the interac-tion effect was robust across replicates. No three-way inter-action effects emerged between condition, demographicvariables, and individual difference measures (self-moni-toring, self-esteem, extroversion, gender, age, whether hassiblings). We also entered these variables as covariates inour analyses, and the main effect of activity type and theactivity type� social context interaction remained signifi-cant. An analysis in which we averaged ratings of likeli-hood and anticipated enjoyment (r¼ .723) to create acomposite score revealed the same pattern of simple effectsof social context for each activity type as emerged for theratings of likelihood of engaging in the behaviors.

Anticipated inferences about number of friends. As ex-pected, a repeated-measures ANOVA on anticipated ob-servers’ inferences about the respondent’s number offriends showed a similar pattern of effects. A significant ef-fect of condition emerged (F(2, 188)¼ 17.89, p< .001),qualified by the predicted condition� social context inter-action (F(2, 188)¼ 46.47, p< .001; see figure 2). Simpleeffects analyses indicated that for hedonic-public activities,participants in the alone condition expected observers toinfer they had fewer friends if they engaged in the activitythan participants in the together condition (Malone¼ 2.46vs. Mtogether¼ 4.96; F(1, 188)¼ 184.84, p< .001). No ef-fect of social context emerged in the hedonic-private con-dition (Malone¼ 4.09 vs. Mtogether¼ 4.10, F< 1), and theeffect of social context in the utilitarian-public condition(Malone¼ 4.33 vs. Mtogether¼ 4.67) was only marginal, F(1,188)¼ 3.08, p¼ .08. A significant effect of replicate alsoemerged, F(2, 188)¼ 5.56, p¼ .02, although replicate didnot interact with the treatment manipulations.


Mediation. Because the preceding analyses show thesame directional pattern across replicates, we computed theaverage score across the two replicates for each activitytype to test for mediation using the Hayes PROCESSmacro (model 4). For hedonic-public activities, the bias-corrected indirect effect of social context (alone vs. to-gether) on likelihood of engaging in the activities throughthe proposed mediator (inferences about number of friends)was significant (95% confidence interval [CI], .71–1.83),indicating successful mediation through this path. The indi-rect effect of social context on likelihood was nonsignifi-cant for both hedonic-private (95% CI, �.07 to .12) andutilitarian-public activities (95% CI, �.02 to .31), indicat-ing moderated mediation.

We used the same approach to test mediation of theeffect on anticipated enjoyment. For hedonic-public activi-ties, the bias-corrected indirect effect of social context onanticipated enjoyment through inferences about number of

friends was significant (95% CI, 46–1.54), indicating suc-cessful mediation through this path. The indirect effect ofsocial context on anticipated enjoyment was nonsignificantfor both hedonic-private (95% CI, �.04 to .13) and utilitar-ian-public activities (95% CI, �.01 to .23), indicating mod-erated mediation.

Discussion

These results suggest that consumers are less likely toengage in hedonic-public activities alone and think theywill enjoy these activities less than activities that are eitherpublic and utilitarian or private and hedonic. Notably, wedo not observe a general reluctance to engage in public be-haviors when alone: consumers imagining they were aloneexpressed more interest in public utilitarian activities thanconsumers imagining they were with two or more friends.Anticipated enjoyment is a less important motivator for

TABLE 1

MEANS ACROSS ACTIVITIES IN STUDY 1

Social context Dependent measure

Hedonic-public activities Utilitarian-public activities Hedonic-private activities

Dinner at arestaurant

Movie at atheater

Grocerystore

Take awalk

Movie athome

Videogame

Alone (n¼48) Likely to engage in activity 2.94 (1.54) 3.00 (1.75) 5.27 (1.23) 4.90 (1.43) 5.15 (1.11) 4.94 (1.59)Anticipated enjoyment 2.88 (1.55) 3.31 (1.65) 4.17 (1.37) 4.56 (1.37) 5.00 (1.07) 4.92 (1.43)Others’ inferences about

number of friends2.52 (1.64) 2.40 (1.65) 4.38 (1.20) 4.31 (1.19) 4.15 (1.22) 4.04 (1.53)

Together (n¼48) Likely to engage in activity 4.77 (1.29) 4.46 (1.52) 2.98 (1.62) 4.13 (1.62) 4.35 (1.42) 3.13 (1.79)Anticipated enjoyment 5.32 (.91) 5.11 (.98) 3.81 (1.33) 4.53 (1.18) 4.87 (.97) 3.77 (1.65)Others’ inferences about

number of friends5.00 (1.17) 4.92 (1.32) 4.71 (1.52) 4.63 (1.44) 4.38 (1.53) 3.83 (1.62)

NOTE.—N¼ 96. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

FIGURE 1

INTEREST IN ACTIVITY (STUDY 1)

FIGURE 2

ANTICIPATED INFERENCES ABOUT FRIENDS (STUDY 1)


utilitarian than for hedonic activities, and consumers mayreason that if they are alone, they may as well get the gro-cery shopping done or get some exercise. Nor do we ob-serve a general reluctance to engage in hedonic activitieswhen alone: consumers imagining they were alone ex-pressed more interest in private hedonic activities than con-sumers imagining they were with two or more friends.As predicted, in the public-hedonic condition, the effectsare mediated by consumers’ predictions that others will in-fer they have fewer friends if they engage in the behaviorsalone.

STUDY 2: GENERALIZATION ACROSSCULTURES

In study 2, we examine the cross-cultural generalizabil-ity of consumers’ reluctance to engage in hedonic-publicactivities alone due to the negative inferences they antici-pate from others. In study 1, our participants were based inthe United States, an individualistic culture (Hofstede2001). Will we observe the same activity preferencesamong those from collectivistic cultures? While collectiv-istic cultures place greater value on social cohesion, whichmay strengthen the results, more interdependent individ-uals also might feel more connected with close others evenwhen they are alone (Hofstede 2001), reducing anticipationof negative inferences and weakening the effects. To testthese competing predictions empirically, we compared ac-tivity preferences among consumers from the UnitedStates, India, and China. These countries differ on severaldimensions that could be relevant to our phenomenon in-cluding individualism versus collectivism and powerdistance.

Participants, Design, and Procedures

We collected data using two online panels. A total of271 participants (54% male) ranging in age from 18 to 74years completed this study: 100 US participants (47%male, average age 35) and 101 Indian participants (69%male, average age 31) completed the study on Amazon’smTurk, and 70 Chinese participants (39% male, averageage 26) completed the study on a Chinese site similar tomTurk (en.Zhubajie.com) in exchange for a small pay-ment. All participants completed the study in English andresponded to the same dependent measures.

Participants were asked to “Imagine there is a movieyou would really like to see that is currently playing at a the-ater near you. You know that it will only be playing foranother week before it moves out of the theaters.” Thosein the alone conditions were asked to “Suppose that noone is available to go with you to see this movie” whilethose in the together condition were asked to “Suppose that

two or more friends are available to go with you to see thismovie.”

After reading this text, participants responded to a seriesof dependent measures tapping their interest in going tosee the movie (“How interested would you be in going tosee this movie alone [with two or more friends] at a the-ater?” and “How much would you enjoy the experience ofgoing to see this movie alone [with two or more friends] ata theater?” 1¼ Not at all, 7¼Very much), and their predic-tions about how others would react to their seeing themovie (“If others at the theater saw you there alone [withtwo or more friends] and were asked to guess how manyfriends you have, what do you think they would guess?”and “If others at the theater saw you there alone [with twoor more friends] and were asked to guess how many mem-bers of your family you are close to, what do you thinkthey would guess?” 1¼ That I have few friends/close fam-ily members, 7¼That I have very many friends/close fam-ily members).

Next, we measured participants’ demographic character-istics (age, gender, marital status, nationality) and severalindividual differences. To test for effects of cultural and in-dividual differences, we included 31 items measuring inde-pendence and interdependence (a¼ .83 and .85; Singelis1994), 10 items measuring power distance (a¼ .46;Hofstede 2001; Zhang, Winterich, and Mittal 2010), 6items measuring social anxiety (a¼ .85; Fenigstein,Scheier, and Buss 1975), 3 items measuring desire for sta-tus (a¼ .88; Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy 2009), and 10items measuring need to belong (a¼ .77; Leary et al.2013). Social anxiety, desire for status, and need to belongdid not reliably explain differences across conditions and isnot discussed further.

Results

Cultural differences. First, we examined whether re-sponses to the individual differences scales varied based onthe nationality of respondents. A 3 (Nationality: China,India, US)� 2 (Social context: Alone, Together)� 2 (Self-Construal: Independent, Interdependent) repeated-mea-sures ANOVA in which self-construal was the repeatedfactor showed only a main effect of nationality, F(2,241)¼ 25.24, p< .001, and an interaction between nation-ality and self-construal, F(2, 241)¼ 7.68, p< .001. Asshown in table 2, Indian participants had higher scores onthe two measures combined (M¼ 6.71) than did Chinese(M¼ 5.86) or US participants (M¼ 5.96). While US partic-ipants scored higher on the independence (M¼ 6.22) thanon the interdependence items (M¼ 5.71; F(1, 91)¼ 11.58,p< .001), Chinese participants scored marginally lower onthe independence (M¼ 5.76) than on the interdependenceitems (M¼ 5.96; F(1, 66)¼ 2.79, p¼ .10). Indian partici-pants scored equally high on both independence(M¼ 6.72) and interdependence items (M¼ 6.70; p> .90).


These results are consistent with country-level measuresthat suggest China’s score on individualism is low (20),India’s score is moderate (48), and the US score is high(91; www.geert-hofstede.com).

A 3 nationality� 2 social context ANOVA showed thatIndian (M¼ 4.02) and Chinese participants (M¼ 3.92)scored higher on power distance than US participants(M¼ 3.43; F(2, 256)¼ 24.23, p< .001). These results arealso consistent with country-level measures that suggestthat both China (80) and India (77) are high on power dis-tance, whereas the United States is lower (40; www. geert-hofstede.com). Thus we observe the predicted differencesin self-construal and power distance across the US, Indian,and Chinese participants.

Interest in activity. A 3 nationality� 2 social contextANOVA on interest in the activity showed a main effect ofnationality, F(2, 267)¼ 6.00, p< .01, a main effect of so-cial context, F(1, 267)¼ 28.31, p< .001, and no interactionbetween social context and nationality, p> .15. Interest ingoing to a movie in a theater was higher for US (M¼ 5.10)and Indian (M¼ 5.28) participants than for Chinese partici-pants (M¼ 4.31). However, as predicted, participants of allthree nationalities expressed less interest in going to seethe movie alone (M¼ 4.29) than in going with two or morefriends (M¼ 5.51). The same analysis using age and gen-der of participants as covariates showed the same results,and neither covariate was significant.

Anticipated enjoyment. A 3� 2 ANOVA on antici-pated enjoyment showed consistent results, with a main ef-fect of nationality, F(2, 267)¼ 10.27, p< .001, a maineffect of social context, F(1. 267)¼ 45.09, p< .001, and nointeraction, p> .24. Anticipated enjoyment was higher forUS (M¼ 5.30) and Indian (M¼ 5.27) participants than forChinese participants (M¼ 4.18). However, as predicted,participants of all three nationalities anticipated less enjoy-ment in going to see the movie alone (M¼ 4.19) than ingoing with two or more friends (M¼ 5.64). The same anal-ysis using age and gender as covariates showed the sameresults, and neither covariate was significant.

Anticipated inferences about number of friends. Weasked participants to predict others’ inferences about thenumber of friends they had and the number of family mem-bers to whom they were close. A confirmatory factor anal-ysis shows that these measures are distinct fromparticipants’ interest in the activity: interest and enjoymentload on one factor and the two inference measures load ona separate factor (all loadings> .85).

A 3 (Nationality: China, India, US)� 2 (Social context:Alone, Together) v 2 (Inferences: Number of friends,Number of family members) repeated-measures ANOVAin which inferences was the repeated factor showed a maineffect of social context, F(1, 270)¼ 57.21, p< .001, amain effect of nationality, F(2, 270)¼ 40.08, p< .001, an

TA

BL

E2

ME

AN

SA

CR

OS

SC

OU

NT

RIE

SA

ND

SO

CIA

LC

ON

TE

XT

SIN

ST

UD

Y2

Countr

yS

ocia

lconte

xt

Inte

rest

inactiv

ity

Pre

dic

ted

enjo

yment

Oth

ers

’in

fere

nces

ofnum

ber

offr

iends

Oth

ers

’in

fere

nces

ofnum

ber

offa

mily

Independence

Inte

rdependence

Socia

lanxi

ety

Desire

for

sta

tus

Need

tobelo

ng

Pow

er

dis

tance

Chin

aA

lone

(n¼

34)

3.7

1(2

.46)

3.3

2(2

.09)

2.6

1(1

.84)

3.0

0(1

.35)

5.6

4(.

92)

5.9

7(1

.04)

4.7

8(1

.48)

6.3

1(2

.08)

3.1

7(.

50)

3.9

3(.

56)

Togeth

er

(n¼

36)

4.8

1(1

.94)

5.0

3(1

.93)

4.3

2(2

.12)

4.1

4(1

.58)

5.9

0(1

.03)

5.9

3(.

83)

4.7

1(1

.73)

6.4

1(1

.74)

3.3

4(.

63)

3.9

2(.

40)

India

Alo

ne

(n¼

51)

4.4

1(2

.01)

4.4

1(1

.93)

4.6

1(1

.50)

5.1

0(1

.42)

6.6

1(1

.06)

6.7

7(1

.03)

5.5

2(1

.32)

6.7

6(1

.51)

3.3

0(.

46)

4.1

4(.

45)

Togeth

er

(n¼

50)

6.1

4(1

.04)

6.1

2(1

.14)

5.3

9(1

.25)

4.7

4(1

.66)

6.8

0(1

.03)

6.6

7(1

.11)

5.0

1(1

.90)

6.3

0(2

.13)

3.1

8(.

65)

3.9

0(.

56)

Unite

dS

tate

sA

lone

(n¼

50)

4.7

5(2

.17)

4.8

2(2

.11)

2.1

4(1

.17)

3.0

8(1

.26)

6.1

2(.

98)

5.6

1(.

83)

5.6

2(1

.92)

4.9

5(2

.22)

2.7

7(.

64)

3.4

3(.

79)

Togeth

er

(n¼

50)

5.3

9(1

.58)

5.7

8(1

.28)

4.5

7(1

.58)

4.4

1(1

.49)

6.3

2(1

.13)

5.8

7(1

.22)

5.4

7(1

.81)

4.7

8(2

.18)

2.9

5(.

77)

3.4

2(.

80)

NO

TE

.—N¼

271.

Sta

ndard

devia

tions

are

inpare

nth

eses.


www.geert-hofstede.com

www

interaction between social context and inferences, F(2,270)¼ 22.00, p< .001, and an interaction between socialcontext and nationality, F(2, 270)¼ 11.40, p< .001.Participants thought that others observing their behaviorwould infer they had both more friends and more closefamily members when they imagined going to a moviewith friends (M¼ 4.60) than when they imagined goingalone (M¼ 3.42). Indian participants reported higher num-bers for the two measures combined (M¼ 4.96) than didChinese (M¼ 3.52) or US participants (M¼ 3.55). The in-teraction between social context and inferences shows thatthe effect of social context was stronger for US participants(Malone¼ 2.61 vs. Mtogether¼ 4.49; F(1, 100)¼ 65.05,p< .001) and Chinese participants (Malone¼ 2.81 vs.Mtogether¼ 4.23; F(1, 71)¼ 20.22, p< .001) than for Indianparticipants (Malone¼ 4.85 vs. Mtogether¼ 5.07; p> .40).Finally, the interaction between social context and infer-ences shows that the effect of social context on inferencesabout friends (Malone¼ 3.12 vs. Mtogether¼ 4.76; F(1,270)¼ 74.23, p< .001) was stronger than the effect of so-cial context on inferences about close family members(Malone¼ 3.73 vs. Mtogether¼ 4.43; F(1, 270)¼ 15.50,p< .001).

Mediation. Bootstrapping analyses using the HayesPROCESS macro (model 5) show that controlling for na-tionality, inferences about number of friends partially me-diate the effects of social context on both interest andanticipated enjoyment. Although the direct effect of socialcontext on interest remained significant, the indirect effectof inferences about number of friends was significant (95%CI, .01–.27). In contrast, the indirect effect of inferencesabout number of close family members on interest was NS(95% CI, �.02 to .09).

Results for mediation of the effect of social context onanticipated enjoyment were consistent. Again, although thedirect effect of social context on anticipated enjoyment re-mained significant, the indirect effect of inferences aboutnumber of friends was significant (95% CI. .02–.23). Incontrast, the indirect effect of inferences about number ofclose family members on enjoyment was NS (95% CI,�.01 to .08). Thus inferences about number of friends con-tribute to the effect of social context on anticipated enjoy-ment and interest in going to a movie.

Discussion

The results of study 2 suggest that in both individualisticand collectivistic cultures, consumers are less interested inengaging in a hedonic-public activity by themselves thanin the company of others. Is this a rational response, drivenby their anticipation that they will enjoy the activity lesswhen alone than with others? While this explanation issupported by the significant effect of social context on an-ticipated enjoyment, partial mediation of the effect by

participants’ inferences about the number of friends theyhave suggests that the effect is at least partially driven byconcerns about others’ inferences. Is the effect driven bythe belief that engaging in an activity with others will gen-erate more status than engaging in the activity alone(McFerran and Argo 2014)? Although need for status wassignificantly higher for Indian and Chinese participantsthan for US participants (F(2, 267)¼ 20.18, p< .001), wedid not observe a stronger effect of social context forIndian and Chinese participants, suggesting that desire forstatus does not drive the effect.

One limitation of the first two studies is that we rely onscenarios to test our predictions. In our next study, we mea-sure people’s interest in engaging in an activity either aloneor with others and then compare their anticipated enjoy-ment with their actual enjoyment of the activity.

STUDY 3: ARE CONSUMERS’PREDICTIONS ABOUT ENJOYMENT

ACCURATE?

We have suggested that reluctance to engage in certainactivities alone may lead consumers to miss out on oppor-tunities to derive enjoyment from solitary consumption. Totest this empirically, in this study we compare the actualenjoyment experienced by individuals who had a public-hedonic experience—exploring an art gallery on campus—either with or without a companion. In addition, wecompared participants’ actual enjoyment to the forecaststhey provided about how much they would enjoy the expe-rience. Recent research shows that the context in whichpeople consume an experience can have less of an impacton their actual experience than they expected because theirattentional resources are consumed by the focal stimulusand not the context (Morewedge et al. 2010). Likewise, wedo not expect participants to make accurate predictionsabout the effect of social context on their enjoyment of anexperience. Specifically, we expect them to overestimatethe degree to which being accompanied by a companionwill affect their enjoyment of an experience.

We chose a student union art gallery as the venue for thestudy because it was accessible to us, relatively small(meaning that a visit could be completed within 5 to 10minutes), and quite public (the gallery has glass walls, al-lowing passersby to observe those in the gallery). Althoughwe expected participants to view a visit to the gallery as arelatively hedonic experience, we also predicted that varia-tions in their perceptions about whether it was a hedonic orutilitarian experience would moderate the effect of socialcontext as in study 1.


Eighty-six participants (54% male, average age 22)walking through a campus student union were recruited to


participate in the study. Interns were instructed to recruitparticipants walking alone for the alone condition and pairsof participants walking together for the together condition.All participants were offered entry in a lottery to win $250in exchange for their time.

After participants had agreed to take part in the study,they were escorted to a set of tables where they weregreeted by the experimenters and filled out an informedconsent form. All participants were told that as part of thestudy, they would be visiting an art gallery hosting a spe-cial exhibit nearby in the student union, approximately 50yards away from the experimenter tables. Participants as-signed to the forecasting conditions (n¼ 29 in the alonecondition and n¼ 30 in the together condition) filled out aseries of dependent measures consistent with the measuresused in our earlier studies. In addition, we had a no-forecastcontrol condition in which participants were alone and didnot make forecasts (n¼ 27). We included this condition totest whether those who did and did not make forecastswould rate their experiences differently. Those in this no-forecast condition read the same description of the specialexhibit prior to their visit to the gallery but did not respondto any dependent measures prior to entering the gallery.

Next, all participants were asked to spend at least fiveminutes exploring the art gallery at their own pace, eitheralone or with their partner, depending on their experimen-tal condition. After they visited the gallery, all participantsreturned to the experimenter tables to answer a series of de-pendent measures.

Dependent measures. Those in the forecasting condi-tions were asked how interested they were in visiting thegallery, how much they thought they would enjoy the gal-lery (1¼Not at all, 7¼Very much), and what otherswould infer about their number of friends if they saw themvisiting the gallery (1¼That I have few friends, 7¼That Ihave many friends). To disentangle participants’ predic-tions about others’ inferences from their own beliefs aboutthe number of friends they have, we also asked participantsto indicate how many friends they had (1¼ I have fewfriends, 7¼ I have many friends).

After their visit to the gallery, all participants were askedto indicate how much they had enjoyed their visit to the artgallery (1¼Not at all, 7¼Very much), how interestedthey would be in attending similar exhibits in the future(1¼Not at all, 7¼Very much), and how many friendsthey thought others who saw them had inferred they had(1¼That I have few friends, 7¼That I have manyfriends). Again, we asked participants to report how manyfriends they had (1¼ I have few friends, 7¼ I havemany friends). We also asked them how much they likedart (1¼Not at all, 7¼Very much), whether they were mo-tivated to visit the gallery by enjoyment (hedonic) or tolearn something (utilitarian; 1¼Enjoyment, 7¼Learning),how knowledgeable they were about art (1¼Not at all,

7¼Very knowledgeable), how familiar they were with art(1¼Not at all, 7¼Very familiar), whether they had visitedthis art gallery in the past (yes or no), and how long it hadbeen since they visited an art gallery (1¼Less than sixmonths ago, 4¼More than one year ago). Finally, partici-pants provided their gender and age.

Results

Anticipated enjoyment and interest in activity.Replicating the results of our earlier studies, participants inthe forecasting conditions predicted that they would enjoythe art gallery experience more if they were accompaniedby a companion (M¼ 5.70) than if they were alone(M¼ 4.76; F(1, 57)¼ 11.71, p< .001; see table 3). Theyalso indicated less interest in visiting the art gallery alone(M¼ 4.07) than when accompanied by a companion(M¼ 6.00; F(1, 57)¼ 28.02, p< .001.

Anticipated enjoyment versus actual enjoyment. First,we compared the actual enjoyment of participants inthe alone conditions who had made or had not madeforecasts prior to visiting the art gallery. Neither actualenjoyment (Mforecast¼ 5.25 vs. Mno forecast¼ 4.89; F(1,54)¼ .80, p> .34) nor interest in seeing similar exhibits inthe future (Mforecast¼ 5.25 vs. Mno forecast¼ 4.86; F(1,54)¼ 1.00, p> .32) differed between conditions. Thusforecasting does not seem to affect actual enjoyment of theexperience or interest in having the experience again.

More central to our predictions, the design of our studyallows us to compare anticipated enjoyment with actual en-joyment of the art gallery across the alone and togetherforecasting conditions. A 2 (Social context: alone, to-gether)� 2 (Timing: before, after) repeated-measuresANOVA on enjoyment in which timing was the within-subjects factor showed a significant main effect of socialcontext, F(1, 56)¼ 4.90, p< .05, as well as a marginal in-teraction between social context and timing, F(1,56)¼ 3.84, p< .06 (see figure 3). Notably, although pre-dicted enjoyment was significantly lower in the alone con-dition than in the together condition, as in our earlierstudies, actual enjoyment did not significantly differ acrossthe alone (M¼ 5.25) and together conditions (M¼ 5.40;F(1, 56)¼ .20, p> .65). The within-subjects contrasts wereNS (in the alone condition, p¼ .14 and in the together con-dition, p¼ .22).

Similarly, a 2 (Social context: alone, together)� 2(Timing: before, after) repeated-measures ANOVA on in-terest showed a significant main effect of social context,F(1, 56)¼ 12.01, p< .001, as well as a significant interac-tion between social context and timing, F(1, 56)¼ 16.73,p< .001. Although interest prior to visiting the gallery wassignificantly lower in the alone condition than in the to-gether condition, as shown earlier, interest in seeing similarexhibits in the future after visiting the gallery did not differ


across the alone (M¼ 5.25) and together conditions(M¼ 5.23; F(1, 56)¼ .00, p> .96).

Anticipated inferences about number of friends. Alsoreplicating our earlier studies, participants in the forecast-ing conditions thought others would infer that they hadfewer friends if they visited the gallery alone (M¼ 3.59)than if they visited with a companion (M¼ 5.93;F(1, 57)¼ 52.08, p< .001). This difference was significanteven when we used participants’ reported actual number offriends as a covariate, F(1, 56)¼ 43.41, p¼ .01.

Consistent with the other dependent measures, differ-ences in others’ anticipated inferences about one’s numberof friends were also attenuated after visiting the gallery. A2 (Social context: alone, together)� 2 (Timing: before, af-ter) repeated-measures ANOVA on inferences showed asignificant main effect of social context, F(1, 56)¼ 28.84,p< .001, as well as a significant interaction between socialcontext and timing, F(1, 56)¼ 19.73, p< .001. Anticipatedinferences about number of friends differed more acrossconditions prior to visiting the gallery, as shown earlier,than after visiting the gallery, when inferences in the alone(M¼ 4.29) and together conditions were more similar(M¼ 5.27; F(1, 56)¼ 7.25, p< .01).

Mediation. As in our earlier studies, a bootstrappinganalysis using the Hayes PROCESS macro (model 4)showed that anticipated inferences about number of friendsmediated the effect of social context on interest in visitingthe gallery (indirect effect 95% CI, .09–.83) and predictedenjoyment (indirect effect 95% CI, .13–.62). In contrast,participants’ own perceptions of the number of friends theyhad did not mediate the effect of social context on interest(indirect effect 95% CI, �.22 to .06) or anticipated enjoy-ment (indirect effect 95% CI, �.14 to .03). This differencesuggests that anticipated inferences by observers, ratherthan beliefs about their own social connectedness (i.e., aself-signaling mechanism), drive the effect.

Moderation by hedonic/utilitarianperceptions. Consistent with study 1, whether the con-sumption experience was perceived to be hedonic or utili-tarian moderated the effect of social context on interest andanticipated enjoyment. The degree to which participants re-ported that they were motivated to visit the gallery to enjoyit (1¼Hedonic) rather than to learn something(7¼Utilitarian) moderated the effect (values ranged from1 to 7; M¼ 3.82, SD¼ 1.85). Beliefs about the hedonic/utilitarian nature of the activity had a marginal main effect(b¼ .16, p¼ .09; 95% CI,� .03 to .35) and interacted withthe effect of social context (b¼�.23, 95% CI, �.42 to�.04) on interest. Specifically, the effect of social contextwas significantly stronger (R2 change .07, F(1, 49)¼ 6.12,p< .05) one SD below the mean (when the activity wasperceived to be more hedonic; b¼ 1.48, p< .001; 95% CI,.98–1.98) than it was one SD above the mean (when the ac-tivity was perceived to be more utilitarian; b¼ .61, p< .05;95% CI, .11–1.11).

We observe a very similar pattern of results when antici-pated enjoyment is the dependent variable. Beliefs aboutthe hedonic/utilitarian nature of the activity marginally in-teracted with the effect of social context (b¼�.13, 95%CI, �.28 to .02) on anticipated enjoyment. Specifically, theeffect of social context was marginally stronger (R2 change.04, F(1, 49)¼ 2.91, p< .10) 1 SD below the mean (whenthe activity was perceived to be more hedonic; b¼ .76,

TABLE 3

MEANS ACROSS SOCIAL CONTEXT AND FORECASTING CONDITIONS IN STUDY 3

Before activity After activity

Socialcontext Forecast

Interestin activity

Predictedenjoyment

Others’inferences

about numberof friends

Own estimateof numberof friends

Interest indoing activity

againActual

enjoyment

Others’inferences

about numberof friends

Ownestimate of

numberof friends

Alone No (n¼27) 4.86 (1.80) 4.89 (1.52) 3.81 (1.30) 5.26 (1.63)Yes (n¼29) 4.07 (1.67) 4.76 (1.06) 3.59 (1.40) 5.24 (1.68) 5.25 (1.04) 5.25 (1.46) 4.29 (1.58) 5.29 (1.72)

Together Yes (n¼30) 6.00 (1.08) 5.70 (1.06) 5.93 (1.08) 6.00 (.98) 5.23 (1.52) 5.40 (1.10) 5.27 (1.17) 6.10 (1.00)


FIGURE 3

PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL ENJOYMENT OF ART GALLERYVISIT ALONE VERSUS WITH OTHERS (STUDY 3)


p< .001; 95% CI, .36–1.17) than it was 1 SD above themean (when the activity was perceived to be more utilitar-ian; b¼ .28, p> .17; 95% CI, �.13 to .68). This modera-tion is consistent with study 1’s demonstration thatconsumers are more reluctant to engage by themselvesin hedonic-public activities than in utilitarian-publicactivities.

Discussion

This study provides empirical support for a key premiseof our investigation: consumers who forgo hedonic activitiesalone are missing out on opportunities for rewarding experi-ences. Consumers in this study overestimated how much be-ing alone versus with a companion would impact theirenjoyment of the art gallery: they expected to enjoy it morewith others than alone when in fact their enjoyment did notdepend on whether or not they were with a companion.

In addition, this study replicates the effect of social con-text on interest and anticipated enjoyment from our earlierstudies using a real consumption setting (i.e., consumersvisited a real art gallery). Further, consistent with study 1,the results demonstrate moderation by the extent to whichthe consumers perceived the experience as hedonic versusutilitarian. These results extend study 1’s comparisonsacross activities because the experience in this studyis held constant across participants, and it is consumers’perceptions of the nature of the experience (hedonic vs.utilitarian) that moderate the effect of social context.

The next two studies examine whether we can disinhibitsolo consumption of activities. If inhibition is due toothers’ anticipated negative inferences about engaging inhedonic (vs. utilitarian) activities alone, then making apublic activity seem more utilitarian should attenuate par-ticipants’ reluctance to engage in the activity. In study 4,we show that providing a cue that the activity is at leastpartly utilitarian attenuates the effects of social context onanticipated inferences and increases willingness to engagein the behavior alone.

STUDY 4: DISINHIBITING SOLITARYPUBLIC CONSUMPTION

Many coffee shops provide newspapers for their cus-tomers to read while enjoying a beverage. In addition toproviding information, might newspapers or other readingmaterial disinhibit solitary public consumption, allowingcustomers to enjoy spending time alone in a public place?In this study, we hold constant the activity (a trip to a cof-fee shop) and vary whether the activity is engaged in aloneor with others and whether or not there is a cue suggestingthat the activity was engaged in at least in part for utilitar-ian reasons. We predicted that cuing a utilitarian compo-nent of the activity would reduce the likelihood that

consumers would anticipate negative evaluations fromothers if they were to engage in the activity alone.


This study used a 2 (activity type: hedonic vs. utilitar-ian)� 2 (social context: alone vs. together) between-subjects design. A total of 242 participants completed thestudy as part of an introductory marketing course for creditor on mTurk in exchange for a small monetary payment.All participants were asked to imagine being at a coffeeshop. Participants in the alone conditions were told toimagine they are at a coffee shop “by yourself,” whereasthose in the together conditions were told to imagine theyare at a coffee shop with two or more friends. Participantsin the hedonic conditions were told, “You don’t have anyreading material (or your phone) with you. You are sitting.. . and having a drink.” Participants in the utilitarian condi-tions were told, “You have reading material (but not yourphone) with you. You are sitting. . . and doing some workwhile having a drink.”

Dependent measures. All participants indicated howinterested they would be in having this experience at thecoffee shop (1¼Not at all, 7¼Very much) and how muchthey would enjoy having this experience at the coffee shop(1¼Not at all, 7¼Very much). Next, participants wereasked to predict how many friends others would guess theyhave if they saw them at the coffee shop (1¼That I havefew friends, 7¼That I have many friends). Finally, anitem intended to serve as a manipulation check askedwhether others would infer that their reason for being atthe coffee shop was “to enjoy yourself (hedonic) versus toaccomplish something (utilitarian)” (1¼To enjoy myself,7¼To accomplish something).

Results

Manipulation check. Participants expected others to in-fer that their reason for being at the coffee shop was to en-joy themselves more in the hedonic activity condition(Mhedonic¼ 3.59 vs. Mutilitarian¼ 3.95), F(1, 239)¼ 3.72,p¼ .055. Respondents also anticipated that others wouldinfer their reason for being at the coffee shop was to enjoythemselves more if they were with others than alone(Mtogether¼ 3.54 vs. Malone¼ 3.97), F(1, 239)¼ 5.05,p¼ .03, but no social context� activity type interactionemerged (F< 1), indicating that in both the alone and withothers conditions, respondents perceived the activity asmore hedonic in the hedonic condition.

Interest in activity. An ANOVA revealed a main effectof social context on participants’ interest in having the ex-perience at the coffee shop. As shown in table 4, partici-pants who imagined sitting at the coffee shop with twofriends were more interested in having this experience(M¼ 4.84) than those who imagined being there alone


(M¼ 4.10), F(1, 238)¼ 7.63, p¼ .006. Consistent withour predictions, this main effect was qualified by asignificant social context� activity type interaction(F(1, 238)¼ 23.00, p< .001; see figure 4). In the hedoniccondition, respondents were more interested in having thecoffee shop experience with friends than alone(Mtogether¼ 5.39 vs. Malone¼ 3.72), F (1, 238)¼ 32.98,p< .001. In the utilitarian condition, respondents did not dif-fer in how interested they were in having the coffee shop ex-perience alone versus with friends (Malone¼ 4.71 vs.Mtogether¼ 4.26), F(1, 238)¼ 1.82, p¼ .18. Looking at thesimple effects within social context condition reveals that re-spondents thinking about attending the coffee shop with twofriends were more interested in the experience in the he-donic than in the utilitarian condition (Mhedonic¼ 5.39 vs.Mutilitarian¼ 4.26), F(1, 238)¼ 13.90, p< .0001. However,as predicted, respondents anticipated that if they were alone,they would be more interested in the experience in the utili-tarian than in the hedonic condition (Mutilitarian¼ 4.71 vs.Mhedonic¼ 3.72), F(1, 238)¼ 9.47, p< .01.

Anticipated enjoyment. A similar pattern emerged foranticipated enjoyment. An ANOVA revealed a main effectof social context on participants’ ratings. Participants whoimagined sitting at the coffee shop with two friends thoughtthey would enjoy the experience more than those who imag-ined being there alone (Mtogether¼ 4.95 vs. Malone¼ 4.38),F(1, 239)¼ 4.29, p¼ .04. Consistent with our predictions,this main effect was qualified by a significant social con-text� activity type interaction (F(1, 239)¼ 20.14, p< .001).In the hedonic condition, respondents thought they would en-joy the coffee shop experience more with friends than alone(Mtogether¼ 5.42 vs. Malone¼ 4.01), F (1, 239)¼ 10.05,p< .01. In the utilitarian condition, respondents did not dif-fer in how much they thought they would enjoy the coffeeshop experience alone versus with friends (Malone¼ 4.98 vs.Mtogether¼ 4.46), F(1, 239)¼ 2.57, p¼ .11. Looking at thesimple effects within social context condition reveals that,not surprisingly, respondents believed that if they were withtwo friends, they would enjoy the experience more when notworking than when working (Mhedonic¼ 5.42 vs.Mutilitarian¼ 4.46), F(1, 239)¼ 10.67, p¼ .001. However, aspredicted, respondents believed that if they were alone, theywould enjoy the experience more when working

(Mutilitarian¼ 4.98) than when not working (Mhedonic¼ 4.01,F(1, 239)¼ 9.53, p< .01).

Anticipated inferences about number of friends.Participants who imagined sitting at the coffee shop withtwo friends expected others at the coffee shop to infer thatthey had more friends (M¼ 4.38) than those who imaginedbeing there alone (M¼ 3.15), F(1, 238)¼ 34.58, p< .001.This main effect was qualified by a significant social con-text� activity type interaction (F(1, 238)¼ 9.56, p< .01;see figure 5). Simple effects tests indicate that in the he-donic condition, respondents anticipated that observerswould guess they had more friends when having the coffeeshop experience with friends than alone (Mtogether¼ 4.65vs. Malone¼ 2.90), F(1, 238)¼ 46.41, p< .001. In the utili-tarian condition, this effect was attenuated and was onlymarginally significant (Mtogether¼ 4.10 vs. Malone¼ 3.56),F(1, 238)¼ 3.43, p¼ .065. Looking at the simple effectswithin social context condition reveals that respondentsthinking about sitting in the coffee shop with two friendsanticipated more positive inferences by observers about

TABLE 4

MEANS ACROSS SOCIAL CONTEXT AND HEDONIC/UTILITARIAN CONDITIONS IN STUDY 4

Social context Hedonic/utilitarian Interest in activity Predicted enjoymentOther’ inferences

about number of friends

Alone Hedonic (n¼72) 3.72 (1.71) 4.01 (1.78) 2.90 (1.52)Utilitarian (n¼45) 4.71 (1.79) 4.98 (1.62) 3.56 (1.36)

Together Hedonic (n¼64) 5.39 (1.35) 5.42 (1.30) 4.65 (1.48)Utilitarian (n¼61) 4.26 (1.90) 4.46 (1.82) 4.10 (1.56)


FIGURE 4

INTEREST IN ACTIVITY AT COFFEE SHOP (STUDY 4)


friends in the hedonic than in the utilitarian condition(Mhedonic¼ 4.65 vs. Mutilitarian¼ 4.10), F(1, 238)¼ 4.26,p¼ .04. Conversely, when respondents anticipated that thatthey were alone, they anticipated more positive inferencesabout friends in the utilitarian than in the hedonic condition(Mutilitarian¼ 3.56 vs. Mhedonic¼ 2.90), F(1, 238)¼ 5.32,p¼ .02.

Mediation. We conducted a bootstrapping test to ex-amine whether the effects of condition on interest in havingthe experience at the coffee shop were mediated by partici-pants’ beliefs about observers’ inferences about their num-ber of friends. The bias-corrected indirect effects involvinginferences about observers’ beliefs about number of friendsin the hedonic condition (95% CI, .256–.895) and in theutilitarian condition (95% CI, .010–.379) were significant,indicating mediation in both conditions. However, a signif-icant interaction effect emerged (95% CI, �.77 to �.118),indicating that the indirect effect of social context medi-ated by inferences was larger in the hedonic than in theutilitarian condition. We conducted a similar test for antici-pated enjoyment, and the results were consistent. Again, asignificant interaction effect emerged (95% CI, �.758 to�.114), indicating that the indirect effect of social contexton anticipated enjoyment via inferences was larger in thehedonic than in the utilitarian condition.

Discussion

The results of study 4 replicate our prior studies, againshowing that consumers are less interested in having a

public-hedonic experience alone than with others. As pre-dicted, this effect is attenuated when participants imaginehaving work with them while alone at the coffee shop.Participants actually predicted that they would enjoy theexperience alone at the coffee shop more when doing workthan when not doing work, even though the reverse wastrue when they imagined themselves with friends. This re-versal highlights the strong role of the negative effect thatobservers’ inferences can have on predicted enjoyment ofan activity. Consistent with this reasoning, we show thatthe effect of social context on enjoyment is mediated byconsumers’ beliefs about observers’ inferences about howmany friends they have. When sitting and having a drink,consumers expect observers to infer they have fewerfriends if they are sitting alone than with two or morefriends, reducing their interest in the activity and their pre-dicted enjoyment. The effects on inferences, interest, andpredicted enjoyment are attenuated when consumers imag-ine themselves doing work at the coffee shop.

In the next study, we examine another way to disinhibitsolitary public consumption. We focus here on directly ma-nipulating the observability of the behavior. We predictthat individuals who are unaccompanied should feel morecomfortable engaging in the activity when they expect theirbehavior will be observed by a relatively smaller numberof people.

STUDY 5: INTEREST IN A PUBLIC-HEDONIC ACTIVITY AT A PEAK VERSUS

OFF-PEAK TIME

In study 5, we manipulate whether participants considerengaging in a hedonic activity alone versus with two ormore companions and test whether their interest in the ac-tivity depends on how many observers they think will bepresent. Specifically, we asked participants to rate their in-terest in seeing a movie at a peak (Saturday evening) or anoff-peak time (Sunday evening), with the expectation thatthey would anticipate the theater to be more full—and theirbehavior to be observed by more other people—at a peaktime. We expected that even if consumers generally preferSaturday to be their movie night, they would prefer to see amovie alone on a Sunday when their behavior would be ob-served by fewer other people.


This study used a two-cell (social context: alone vs. to-gether) between-subjects design. A total of 378 US under-graduate students (51% male) ranging in age from 18 to 35years (average age 20.34) completed the study for classcredit as part of an introductory marketing course.

Participants in all conditions read the following instruc-tions: “Imagine that there is a movie you would really liketo see that is currently playing at a theater near you. The

FIGURE 5

ANTICIPATED INFERENCES ABOUT NUMBER OF FRIENDS(STUDY 4)


ticket price is $10, and you know that it will only be play-ing for another week before it moves out of the theaters.”Next, participants in the alone condition read, “Supposethat no one is available to go with you to see the movie thisweekend and you don’t yet have plans for Saturday orSunday evening. Would you prefer to see the movie byyourself on the Saturday or Sunday evening?” Those in thetogether condition read, “Suppose that two of your friendsare available to go with you to see the movie this weekendand you don’t yet have plans for Saturday or Sunday eve-ning. Would you prefer to see the movie with your friendson the Saturday or Sunday evening?”

Dependent measures. Participants reported their pref-erence to see the movie in a theater on a Saturday versusSunday (1¼Strongly prefer Saturday, 7¼Strongly preferSunday) either alone or with two or more friends, depend-ing on the experimental condition to which they had beenassigned. They also indicated whether they would prefer tosee the movie when the movie theater is very full or notvery full (1¼Not very full, 7¼Very full) and whetherthey would like others to see them or not see them at thetheater (1¼ Prefer that they not see me, 7¼Prefer thatthey see me). Finally, they indicated whether they thoughtthe theater would be more full and more visible on aSaturday or a Sunday (1¼Much more (crowded) visibleon Saturday evening, 7¼Much more (crowded) visible onSunday evening) and in general, whether they preferred tosee a movie in a theater on a Saturday or a Sunday evening(1¼Strongly prefer Saturday, 7¼ Strongly preferSunday).

Results

Manipulation checks. As predicted, participantsthought the theater would be more full on a Saturday thanSunday evening (M¼ 1.80 vs. the midpoint of the 7-pointscale, t¼ 32.85, p< .0001) and that their being at the the-ater would be more visible to others on a Saturday thanSunday evening (M¼ 2.68 vs. the midpoint of the 7-pointscale, t¼ 13.49, p< .0001).

Interest in activity. An ANOVA with social context asthe between-subjects factor was conducted on participants’preference to see the movie on a Saturday versus Sundaynight. As predicted, participants in the alone condition ex-pressed a greater preference to see the movie in the theateron a Sunday night (M¼ 4.73) than did those in the togethercondition (M¼ 3.15; F(1, 374)¼ 45.62, p< .001). Thispattern emerged even though participants in both condi-tions indicated that “in general” they prefer to see movieson a Saturday (rather than a Sunday) night (M¼ 3.21),with no difference between conditions in that preference.

Observability. Participants in the alone condition ex-hibited a stronger preference not to be seen while at themovie (M¼ 2.51) compared to those in the together

condition (M¼ 4.19), F(1, 374)¼ 120.23, p< .001.Consistently, those in the alone condition indicated a stron-ger preference for the theater not to be very full (M¼ 2.52)than those in the together condition (M¼ 3.21), F(1,374)¼ 14.06, p< .001.

Mediation. To examine whether participants’ prefer-ences to attend a movie alone versus with others on aSaturday versus Sunday evening were guided by their de-sire to be seen versus unseen by others at the theater, wetested for mediation using the Hayes MEDIATE macro.The bias-corrected indirect effect of social context (alonevs. together) on preference for seeing the movie on aSaturday versus Sunday through the proposed mediator(preference not to be seen by others) was significant (95%CI, �.85 to �.27), indicating successful mediation throughthis path. The direct effect of social context continued tobe significant (t¼ 4.00, p< .01) with the mediator in themodel, indicating partial mediation.

Discussion

The results of study 5 provide further support for ourproposed process: consumers are reluctant to engage inpublic-hedonic behaviors alone because they do not wantto be seen by others. When consumers consider engagingin a consumption activity alone, they systematically preferto engage in the activity when they think their behaviorwill be observable by fewer others. As a result, when alone,they prefer to see a movie at an off-peak time, on aSunday, rather than on a Saturday evening, when theywould normally prefer to go. Thus the number of observerswho are expected to make inferences about one’s behaviormoderates the effect of social context on willingness to en-gage in public-hedonic activities alone. This is a notableinsight for service providers, who should be able to con-vince consumers more easily to engage in hedonic activi-ties by themselves precisely when they have extra capacityto serve them: at off-peak times.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Consumers often select activities through which to enjoytheir leisure time, such as going to movies, restaurants, ormuseums, reading for fun, and watching television. In thisresearch, we examine how interest in various activities de-pends on whether or not an activity partner is available.Demographic shifts that have resulted in people spendingmore time alone make this a particularly noteworthy ques-tion because consumers often may not have an activitypartner available. Our research demonstrates two system-atic effects. First, the results of studies 1 and 5 suggest thatinterest in solitary hedonic activities is higher when the ac-tivities will be less visible to others. This is a concern forconsumer welfare because it may discourage consumers


from engaging in activities that would provide a pleasur-able experience and opportunities to meet new activitypartners. Second, the results of studies 1, 3, and 4 suggestthat consumers are less reluctant to engage in public utili-tarian activities than in public-hedonic activities. This, too,is a concern for consumer welfare because it could contrib-ute to hyperopia, the tendency to work rather than enjoyleisure activities, which might be repented later in life(Kivetz and Keinan 2006).

Prior research suggested diverging predictions.Although some sociologists have suggested that consumersreadily engage in activities alone that they previouslymight have engaged in with others (e.g., Putnam 2000), re-search from psychology emphasizes people’s strong desireto do things with others (e.g., Baumeister and Leary 1995).Consumer research provides further evidence that peopleenjoy hedonic experiences more with others than alone(e.g., Raghunathan and Corfman 2006; Ramanathan andMcGill 2007). Our research adds to this literature by show-ing that consumers have qualitatively different activitypreferences when they engage in an activity alone versuswhen they engage in an activity with others.

Our studies suggest that an important driver of con-sumers’ inhibitions from partaking in hedonic-public activ-ities alone is their concern that others will evaluate themnegatively if they do. Study 1 showed that it is hedonic ac-tivities that can be easily observed by others (rather thanhedonic-private or utilitarian-public activities) that promptconsumers to anticipate the most negative inferences, re-ducing interest in these activities when solo. Study 2 dem-onstrated that this inference process as well as consumers’reluctance to engage in a hedonic-public activity (going toa movie) alone generalizes across cultures. Study 3 exam-ined the accuracy of individuals’ forecasts about howmuch they will enjoy a hedonic-public experience anddemonstrates that they underestimate how much they willenjoy it alone compared to with others. Study 4 showedthat a cue that the activity serves a utilitarian purpose atten-uates the anticipated negative evaluations and subsequentreduction in interest in the activity. Mediation tests in thefirst four studies indicate that believing others will makenegative inferences about the number of friends they havereduces consumers’ interest in engaging in public-hedonicactivities. Study 5 further highlights the underlying mecha-nism by showing that although participants generally pre-ferred to see movies in a theater on a Saturday night, whenthey imagined being alone they preferred to go to the the-ater on a Sunday night, so that they would be observed byfewer others.

These results extend prior work on subjective norms(e.g., Ajzen 1991; Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren 1991;Sheppard, Hartwick, and Warshaw 1988) to decisions con-sumers make about how to spend time when they are alone(vs. with others). Both the interaction between the hedonicand public nature of the activities consumers avoid when

alone and mediation by negative inferences by others sug-gest that avoidance of public-hedonic activities when aloneis not driven by a rational calculation that consumers willderive less enjoyment from the activity alone than whenwith a companion. Instead, our findings indicate that con-cern about negative evaluations by others leads consumersto refrain from engaging in hedonic activities that theywould otherwise find enjoyable and want to engage in.Indeed, if predicted enjoyment of the activity when aloneversus with a companion uniquely drove the effect, wewould observe no difference in predicted enjoyment of amovie unaccompanied at home versus in a theater.

Similarly, we should not observe preferences to see amovie in a theater at an off-peak time when fewer ratherthan more other consumers are expected to be present.Because the effect is driven at least in part by anticipatedevaluations made by others, the setting in which theactivity takes place (public or private) and the number ofanticipated observers are critical. Unfortunately, study 3suggests that consumers overestimate how much their ac-tual enjoyment will depend on the social context.Moreover, avoiding public settings in which solitary con-sumers could form new relationships and enjoy leisure pur-suits may reduce consumer welfare (Baumeister and Leary1995; Epley and Schroeder 2014; Kivetz and Keinan2006). Encouraging consumers to enjoy solo hedonic activ-ities at off-peak times, as suggested by study 5, may be away to improve both consumer welfare and managerialprofits.

Our results also extend to earlier work demonstrating theimportance of social connectedness to consumers engagingin public consumption experiences. A recent article byMcFerran and Argo (2014) shows that consumers feel theyhave more status when they are accompanied by otherswhile engaging in public consumption experiences, an ef-fect they call the “entourage effect.” This effect is medi-ated by perceived social connectedness. Our effect, too, ismediated by perceived social connectedness: consumers’beliefs about the number of friends others will think theyhave. In fact, in a study not reported here, we usedMcFerran and Argo’s items to measure social connected-ness and found that they are highly correlated with antici-pated inferences about number of friends (r¼ .75,p< .001). Thus we believe our effect is quite complemen-tary to the entourage effect: whereas the entourage effect isdriven by being accompanied by others, our effect is drivenby not being accompanied by others, and both effects aremediated by beliefs about social connectedness.

An interesting question for further investigation is whatothers conclude when they observe someone engaging in apublic-hedonic consumption activity alone. Some worksuggests that people are more forgiving of others’ behav-iors than they believe others will be of their own (Gilovich,Medvec, and Savitsky 2000; Savitsky, Epley, and Gilovich2001). For instance, people overestimate how much others


will notice their behavior, imagining that others are shininga brighter “spotlight” on them than they actually do(Gilovich et al. 2000). Indeed, when we ran a study(N¼ 84) comparing consumers’ expectations of how otherswould evaluate them when they engaged in a public-hedonic activity (going to a movie at a theater) alone withtheir evaluations of someone else who had engaged in thesame activity alone, we found that participants’ evaluationsof others were significantly more favorable than the evalu-ations they anticipated from others. Compared to evalua-tions that participants gave for someone else seeing amovie alone, participants expected others to evaluate them-selves seeing a movie in a theater alone as less positive(Ms¼ 4.17 vs. 2.86, p< .001), independent (Ms¼ 6.10 vs.5.63, p¼ .076), and proactive (Ms¼ 4.98 vs. 4.35,p¼ .042), and as more unusual (Ms¼ 4.93 vs. 3.95,p¼ .006), antisocial (Ms¼ 4.81 vs. 3.51, p¼ .001) andstrange (Ms¼ 4.98 vs. 3.76, p¼ .001). These results sug-gest that consumers who engage in public-hedonic activi-ties alone may anticipate significantly more negativeevaluations from others than they will actually receive.

Implications for Marketers

These findings have implications for marketers whoseek to capture money that is otherwise being unspent dueto consumers’ inhibition. For marketers, our results suggestthat if they want to better tap into the market of consumersinterested in hedonic experiences (dinners out, movies intheaters, concerts), they can use cues to encourage solitaryconsumption. One way to do this is to change norms, suchas by making it clear that solo consumers are expected andwelcomed. For example, event organizers could offer seat-ing for those who will be participating solo to join withothers who are also participating alone. Communal tablesin a restaurant, group seating in a movie theater for solofilm lovers, or reserved seating for single music lovers at aconcert might facilitate interactions among solo patrons.Indeed, recent research suggests that connecting withstrangers can make utilitarian experiences like commutingmore pleasant than not connecting with others (Epley andSchroeder 2014), so it is likely that this would also be truefor more hedonic experiences. Although consumers’ con-cerns about engaging in solo hedonic activities seemstrong, these concerns might be attenuated if marketersmake it clear that it is appropriate to engage in these behav-iors, as in the marketing of the right-hand diamond ring forsingle women by DeBeers.

Alternatively, marketers could encourage consumers tofeel more comfortable engaging in hedonic activities aloneby making the activities seem more utilitarian. For exam-ple, many coffee shops make newspapers, magazines, andwireless Internet service available to their customers whileenjoying their beverages. Theaters and restaurants mightinvolve solo patrons by making the experience

“collectable” (Keinan and Kivetz 2011). For example, iftheaters can convince patrons to collect every performanceduring a season or if restaurants can convince customers totry every entree on the menu, solo customers might feelmore justified in consuming these hedonic experiences. Inthe present studies, there was variation in consumer per-ceptions of the degree to which a hedonic experience (e.g.,spending time at a coffee shop or art gallery) also was utili-tarian. An interesting question for future research iswhether marketers can frame a neutral activity as utilitarian(vs. hedonic) to encourage solitary consumption.

Implications for Consumers

These findings also have implications for consumerswho feel limited in their hedonic pursuits by the availabil-ity of activity partners. From a consumer welfare perspec-tive, our results suggest that enriching activities may gounexperienced unless consumers decide to take action andengage in activities that interest them, regardless ofwhether they have company. After engaging in such activi-ties several times, it may become easier to do in the future(Dahl et al. 2001). We hope that by identifying a wide-spread inhibition to engage in public-hedonic activitiesalone as well as cues that attenuate this inhibition, we canencourage more consumers to go bowling—or whateverleisure activity is appealing but for which they lack an ac-tivity partner—alone.

DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION

The first and second author supervised data collectionfor study 1 in the spring of 2013 and jointly analyzed thedata. The second author supervised data collection forstudy 2 in the summer of 2014 and study 3 in the spring of2014 and analyzed the data from both studies. The first andsecond author jointly supervised data collection for study 4in the spring of 2013, and the first author analyzed thedata. The first author supervised data collection for study 5in the fall of 2014 and analyzed the data.

REFERENCES

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

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary (1995), “The Need toBelong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as aFundamental Human Motivation,” Psychological Bulletin,117 (May), 497–529.

Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “ReferenceGroup Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183–94.

Bolick, Kate (2011), “All the Single Ladies: More AmericanWomen Are Single Than Ever Before, Here’s Why, andWhat It Means for Sex and the Family,” Atlantic Monthly,308 (November), 116–36.


Bourdieu, Pierre (1986), “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook ofTheory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J.Richardson, New York: Greenwood, 241–58.

Burt, Ronald S. (1997), “A Note on Social Capital and NetworkContent,” Social Networks, 19, 355–73.

Cialdini, R. B., R. R. Reno, and C. A. Kallgren (1990), “A FocusTheory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept ofNorms to Reduce Littering in Public Places,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–26.

Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda, and Jennifer J. Argo(2001), “Embarrassment in Consumer Purchase: The Rolesof Social Presence and Purchase Familiarity,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 28, 473–81.

Dahling, Jason J., Brian G. Whitaker, and Paul E. Levy (2009),“The Development and Validation of a New Machiavellian-ism Scale,” Journal of Management, 35 (2), 219–57.

Dunn, Elizabeth W., Jeremy C. Biesanz, Lauren J. Human, andStephanie Finn (2007), “Misunderstanding the AffectiveConsequences of Everyday Social Interactions: The HiddenBenefits of Putting One’s Best Face Forward,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 92 (June), 990–1005.

Epley, Nicholas and Juliana Schroeder (2014), “MistakenlySeeking Solitude,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 143, 1980–99.

Eysenck, Sybil B. G., Hans Jurgen Eysenck, and Paul Barrett(1985), “A Revised Version of the Psychoticism Scale,”Personality and Individual Differences, 6 (1), 21–29.

Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975),“Public and Private Self-Consciousness: Assessment andTheory,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–27.

Gilovich, Thomas, Victoria H. Medvec, and Kenneth Savitsky(2000), “The Spotlight Effect in Social Judgment: AnEgocentric Bias in Estimates of the Salience of One’s OwnActions and Appearance,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 73 (February), 211–22.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Morris B. Holbrook (1982),“Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods andPropositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92–101.

Hofstede, Geert (2001), Culture’s Consequences: ComparingValues, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations acrossNations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011), “Productivity Orientationand the Consumption of Collectable Experiences,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 37 (April), 935–50.

Kivetz, Ran and Anat Keinan (2006), “Repenting Hyperopia: AnAnalysis of Self-Control Regrets,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 33, September, 273–82.

Klinenberg, Eric (2012), “The Solo Economy,” Fortune(February), 58–63.

Leary, Mark R., Kristine M. Kelly, Catherine A. Cottrell, andLisa S. Schreindorfer (2013), “Construct Validity of theNeed to Belong Scale: Mapping the Nomological

Network,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 95 (6),610–24.

McFerran, Brent and Jennifer Argo (2014), “The EntourageEffect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 871–84.

McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears(2006), “Social Isolation in America: Changes in CoreDiscussion Networks Over Two Decades,” AmericanSociological Review, 71 (June), 353–75.

Morewedge, Carey K., Daniel T. Gilbert, Kristian O. R. Myrseth,Karim S. Kassan, and Timothy D. Wilson (2010),“Consuming Experience: Why Affective ForecastersOverestimate Comparative Value,” Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 46, 986–92.

Park, C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1977), “Students andHousewives: Differences in Susceptibility to ReferenceGroup Influences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4,102–10.

Putnam, Robert D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse andRevival of American Community, New York: Simon &Schuster.

Ragunathan, Rajagopal and Kim Corfman (2006), “Is HappinessShared Doubled and Sadness Shared Halved? SocialInfluence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 43 (August), 386–94.

Ramanthan, Suresh and Ann L. McGill (2007), “Consuming withOthers: Social Influences on Moment-to-Moment andRetrospective Evaluations of an Experience,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 34 (December), 506–24.

Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image,Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Savitsky, Kenneth, Nicholas Epley, and Thomas Gilovich (2001),“Do Others Judge Us as Harshly as We Think?Overestimating the Impact of Our Failures, Shortcomings,and Mishaps,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 44–56.

Sellier, Anne-Laure and Vicki G. Morwitz (2011), “I Want to BeAlone: Role of Time Horizon Perspective on the Valuation ofSocial Presence,” New York University, working paper.

Sheppard, Blair H., J. Hartwick, and P. R. Warshaw (1988), “TheTheory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of PastResearch with Recommendations for Modifications andFuture Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15,325–43.

Singelis, Theodore M. (1994), “The Measurement of Independentand Interdependent Self-Construals,” Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 20 (October), 580–91.

Snyder, Mark and Steven W. Gangestad (1986), “On the Nature ofSelf-Monitoring: Matters of Assessment, Matters ofValidity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,125–39.

Zhang, Yinlong, Karen P. Winterich, and Vikas Mittal (2010),“Power Distance Belief and Impulsive Buying,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 47 (October), 945–54.


Inhibited from Bowling Alone...activities alone (i.e., unaccompanied by one or more com-panions) and...

Documents

Transcript of Inhibited from Bowling Alone...activities alone (i.e., unaccompanied by one or more com-panions) and...