Research Insight | What Brands Can Learn from Consumers' Language During Purchase Decisions
In February 2020, Ikea launched an ad campaign called “Fighting is Inevitable.” The concept was that couples often disagree while shopping but Ikea products can help with the fallout (“at least you’ll spend the night on a comfy sofa”). This campaign reflects a real problem: joint decision conversations are complex.
In a Journal of Marketing Research study, authors analyzed nearly 200 joint decision conversations as consumers shopped. They find that decision partners use a mix of four primary communication patterns that serve as the building blocks of joint decision conversations:
- Coordination communication involves one decision partner initiating clarification or knowledge sharing to get on the same page and is characterized by both question asking and disclosure.
- Contrast communication involves at least one decision partner responding to the other’s statement with a different perspective or an alternative option. It is often characterized by countering language such as “but,” or “what about” and can take the form of persuasion or playing devil’s advocate.
- Build communication involves at least one decision partner responding to the other by adding an affirmation. Building is often characterized by expanding language such as “yes, and…”
- One-sided communication involves a decision partner responding passively to the other partner’s active discussion about the decision. It is characterized by passive language, such as “whatever you want,” or responding with one word (e.g., “okay”).
The use of build communication was associated with positive satisfaction outcomes for both the relationship and the choice, whereas persuasion and coordination were associated with negative satisfaction outcomes. Furthermore, partners do not follow a straight line from “need” to “choice,” instead moving nonlinearly and jumping between evaluation and search as they navigate preferences.
Ultimately, joint decisions are defined not just by what is chosen but by the nature of the discussion. By understanding the dynamics and the nonlinear nature of joint decision making, practitioners can recognize language cues in real time to infer decision lifecycle stage and nudge consumers toward more productive communication patterns to improve the experience.
For more Research Insights, click here.
What You Need to Know
- Joint decision conversations are made up of four primary communication patterns: coordination, contrast, build, and one-sided.
- Nudging decision partners toward more collaborative patterns of communication (e.g., building on each others’ comments with affirming “yes and” statements) may improve decision satisfaction outcomes.
- Real-time language cues can be used to infer the decision lifecycle stage (e.g., if the partners are expanding on the reasons an attribute is important, then they are at the evaluation stage).
Abstract
Communication is a key aspect of the joint decision-making process, yet the field lacks an understanding of how people talk to each other while making joint decisions. In the present research, we analyzed nearly 200 joint decision conversations from shop-along observations. We found that joint decision conversations are composed of four distinct communication patterns, which characterize how partners talk to each other: (1) coordination (including inquiry and disclosure), (2) contrast (including persuasion and devil’s advocate), (3) build, and (4) one-sided. We then used these communication patterns as the building blocks of joint decision conversations to quantitatively model how communication patterns dynamically flow while partners shop together, finding that decision partners navigate the decision lifecycle non-linearly and the usage of the communication patterns affects immediate satisfaction outcomes. Our findings enabled us to draw connections across the splintered literatures on dyadic communication. We develop a taxonomy that reflects an integrated, cross-disciplinary phenomenological understanding of each communication pattern to facilitate interdisciplinary research. Theoretical advancements and practical implications are discussed, as are areas for future research.
Kelley Gullo Wight, Holly S. Howe, Danielle J. Brick, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons, “Communication Patterns in Joint Decision-Making,” Journal of Marketing Research. doi:10.1177/00222437261439058.