When is sociality congruent with self‐care?

Abstract

Kumar and Epley (2023) argue that people underinvest in spending time, effort, and money on other people, and that consumers' own well‐being would improve from increased “sociality.” We pose two questions to enhance understanding of the relationship between sociality and efforts to benefit one's own well‐being: (1) when will other‐oriented consumption promote versus hinder consumers' own well‐being, and (2) what leads consumers to embrace versus forego efforts to improve their well‐being (i.e., self‐care) that does not involve sociality? We propose that the degree to which the consumer is concerned about incorporating others' preferences, the magnitude of resources involved, and the temporal dynamics of consumption will be relevant factors in addressing these two questions. Future research to explore the proposed three factors and other factors will be important for consumers who seek to improve their well‐being as well as marketers who seek to promote it.

Understanding undersociality: Intentions, impressions, and interactions

“…Finally, we agree with both Ratner et al (2023) and Silver and Small (2023) that existing research has largely compared social expectations against experience in one‐shot exchanges, and longer interactions with others would be worth studying in future research. It is still unknown whether the patterns we have observed in dyadic exchanges, largely conducted at a single time point, extend to different social contexts or generalize across repeated social exchanges.…”

“…Ratner et al (2023) raised the broader issue of how to enhance one's own wellbeing—that is, how to engage in “self‐care”—noting that “a consumer who seeks to improve her wellbeing might wonder: What is the appropriate mix of other‐oriented versus self‐oriented consumption?” We note that a consumer who seeks wellbeing in this way may not experience as much of a boost in wellbeing from connecting with others as those who are trying to connect with others without focusing on “self‐care.” Existing research suggests that other‐oriented behavior increases one's own wellbeing indirectly, by achieving basic human goals of relational connection, competency, and autonomy (Dunn et al, 2014). Connecting with others therefore feels good to the extent that it creates a sense of connection with another person, fulfills the goal of positively affecting another person, and/or gives people a sense of effective agency.…”

“…Those interested in understanding the consequences of charitable giving can also test Ratner et al's (2023) suggestion that the positive impact of prosociality will be inversely related to the cost of giving in terms of time, money, or effort. Presumably there is a tipping point at which giving to others becomes sacrificial rather than beneficial to one's own wellbeing.…”

“…Ratner et al (2023) wisely note that some solitary experiences can be pleasurable, too, as any academic who enjoys reading alone can readily attest. In one interesting experiment, Ratner and Hamilton (2015) even found that a solitary experience can be more positive than expected.…”

“…In the spirit of avoiding undersociality, we want to open by sincerely thanking Ratner et al (2023), and Silver and Small (2023), and for taking time to think so seriously about our target article. Both commentaries raise important questions for future research in this area, in consumer behavior and beyond.…”