Although most research on consumers’ choices, and resulting insights, have focused on choices that consumers make solely for themselves, consumers often make choices for others, and there is a growing literature examining such choices. Theoretically, how can this growing literature be integrated, and what gaps remain? Practically, why should marketers, consumers, and policy makers care when choices are made for others, and what should they do differently? A 2 × 2 framework of consumers’ choices for others addresses these questions. This framework has two fundamental dimensions: the chooser’s social focus (relationship vs. recipient oriented) and the chooser’s consideration of consumption preferences (highlight the recipient’s preferences vs. balance the recipient’s preferences with the chooser’s preferences). These dimensions generate four cells that represent prototypical choosing-for-others contexts: gift-giving (relationship focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), joint consumption (relationship focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences), everyday favors/pick-ups (recipient focus, highlighting recipient’s preferences), and caregiving (recipient focus, balancing recipient’s and chooser’s preferences). This framework captures most choosing-for-others situations, and each cell involves a distinct profile of motives, ultimately affecting choices. This framework integrates the choosing-for-others literature, which we hope will guide future research, and it also offers practical implications for marketers, consumers, and policy makers.

Providing calorie counts on restaurants’ menus/menu boards is one of the most prominent policy interventions that has been implemented to combat the obesity epidemic in America. However, previous research across multiple disciplines has found little effect of providing calorie counts on calories ordered, leading some to call calorie provision a failed policy. The authors propose that this failure is partly due to not considering how people process information when making food choices: Americans read from left‐to‐right, processing calorie information only after processing the food item's name. Thus, the authors test a simple way to improve the effectiveness of calorie counts: display calorie counts to the left (vs. right) of food items. A field study and a laboratory study with American participants found that calorie counts to the left (vs. right) decreased calories ordered by 16.31%. A final laboratory study demonstrated that this effect is reversed among Hebrew‐speakers, who read from right‐to‐left, providing further evidence that the order in which calorie information is processed matters. Accordingly, calling calorie labeling a policy failure may be premature.

No abstract

This research examines how drip pricing—a strategy whereby a firm advertises only part of a product’s price up front and then reveals additional mandatory or optional fees/surcharges as the consumer proceeds through the buying process—affects consumer choice and satisfaction.