15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
On the wisdom and utility of (under)sociality:
A consumer psychology perspective

Ike Silver1 and Deborah A. Small2

1. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University

2. Yale School of Management, Yale University

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone

full peer review but has not been through the copyediting,
typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may
lead to differences between this version and the Version of
Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1333
This article is protected by copyright. All rights
reserved.
 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ABSTRACT

Kumar and Epley (2023) review robust evidence for an intriguing hypothesis: That people

fail to appreciate the benefits of everyday social behaviors and thus hesitate to connect with

others in ways that would increase well-being. In this commentary, we discuss how consumer

research can enrich theory and application in this emerging line of inquiry. We suggest (a) that

the hedonic implications of undersociality can be integrated with reputational signaling insights

to generate new questions about the wisdom and utility of social behavior, and (b) that

undersociality has interesting implications for a consumption domain of particular interest to

maximizing welfare: charitable giving.

Keywords: Prosocial Behavior, Charitable Giving, Impression Management, Social Signaling,

Consumer Welfare
 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Consumer research is uniquely positioned to identify decision errors that impede well-

being. In this tradition, Kumar and Epley’s (2023) pioneering investigation of people’s

expectations and experiences of everyday interpersonal behaviors – initiating conversations,

saying thank you, paying compliments - introduces a novel class of potential error: Mistakes of

undersociality. These authors argue that, as a general phenomenon, people misunderstand, and

often undervalue, the impact of actions which foster social connection and strengthen valuable

relationships. Their account is simple and compelling:

1. By nearly any measure, positive social connections enhance well-being.

2. Yet, people seem poorly attuned to the hedonic benefits of many social behaviors for
both initiator and recipient.

3. Miscalibrations and misunderstandings about the (surprisingly) positive impact of

social behavior reduce the likelihood of social engagement and may reduce welfare as a
result.

A number of recent experiments, including many conducted by the authors themselves,

support the existence of such barriers. People underestimate how nice it is to receive a

compliment, and offer fewer kind words as a result (Zhao & Epley, 2021). People overestimate

how awkward it will be express gratitude, and so say thank you less frequently (Kumar & Epley,

2018). People fail to recognize how good it feels is to be asked for help, and so hesitate to seek

aid (Zhao & Epley, in press). The upshot of these results, and many more like them, is that in

misunderstanding the hedonic implications of everyday social behaviors, people fail to invest in

relationships and interactions that would increase their own and others’ happiness.

In what follows, we offer two ways - one theoretical and one substantive - that consumer

researchers can refine, expand, and apply the undersociality hypothesis. The first is to situate it in

a broader conceptualization of utility, one that incorporates other social costs and benefits

beyond the hedonic. The second is to illustrate how it can be tested and applied, outside the
 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
context of everyday interpersonal behavior, in a domain of particular interest to consumer

research: charitable giving.

Assessing the Wisdom and Utility of Undersociality

From a normative perspective, a decision can be evaluated by whether it is likely to deliver

greater utility than relevant alternatives. As such, a decision mistake occurs when a foregone

alternative could have provided more utility, at least in expectation, than a chosen course of

action. Following this logic, Kumar and Epley review robust evidence that people fail to

appreciate the benefits of many social and prosocial behaviors, leading them to miss out on

opportunities to enrich their own and others’ lives.

So far, this work conceptualizes utility primarily in terms of hedonics. For instance, the

authors consider how awkward one expects to feel initiating a conversation with a stranger or

how happy one feels after paying or receiving a complement. This intuitive approach aligns with

a view of utility that prioritizes good feelings (Bentham, 1789/1948; Kahneman, Wakker, &

Sarin, 1997) and aligns with influential research on affective forecasting errors (Wilson &

Gilbert, 2005). At the same time, a broader view of utility-maximizing behavior in social

interactions might enrich the discussion. More specifically, to analyze the wisdom of people’s

choices in interpersonal contexts, it might be fruitful to integrate hedonic reactions with relevant

issues of impression management and social signaling.

In many of the settings discussed in Kumar and Epley’s work, the utility that can be

derived from building and maintaining a good reputation is also pertinent to the decision calculus

(see also Bird & Smith, 2005; Leary & Kowalski 1990). This is because, beyond how they make

us feel in the moment, interpersonal gestures like saying thank you or asking a favor are often
 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
part of dynamic and layered interactions which dictate how others view and treat us, how we

view and treat others, and how relationships develop through time. At first glance, a focus on

reputational utility may lend itself to being friendly and generous (i.e., prosocial) as often and as

publicly as possible in order to earn the credit typically owed to those perceived as warm and

kind. In such cases, adding reputational utility to the equation might reasonably reinforce Kumar

and Epley’s point. Forgoing the opportunity to pay a compliment, for example, may sacrifice

both feeling and looking good. But not all social behaviors are judged charitably: Even

seemingly friendly gestures can sometimes have complicated reputational implications.

When it comes to evaluating other-benefiting prosocial behavior specifically, people often

make inferences about the actor’s underlying motives and discount kind deeds that seem like

they might stem from self-interest (Berman & Silver, 2022; Silver, Newman & Small, 2022). To

illustrate how this dynamic might inform our understanding of utility-maximizing behavior,

consider paying a compliment to a coworker. As recent research demonstrates, people

overestimate how awkward it will be to offer kind words and underestimate how pleasant it

might be for the recipient to receive them. In turn, such miscalibrations inhibit expressions of

kindness. To a first approximation, avoiding complimenting others because of a mistaken

prediction that doing so will be awkward or unpleasant certainly looks like a mistake. But

whether complimenting a coworker maximizes utility overall might also depend on who is

watching and what sorts of inferences they make about the compliment-giver and their motives.

Even if well-intended, a compliment might appear insincere or self-interested. For example, the

target of the compliment, or other third-party observers, may wonder if the compliment-giver is

trying to curry favor or gain status. Whether or not these reputational consequences materialize,

the risk that they might is relevant to the expected utility of the choice.
 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
For another example of how reputational utility might matter, consider asking for a favor.

Kumar and Epley argue that one barrier to asking for a favor is that people underestimate others’

willingness to help and fail to realize how nice it can feel to offer assistance. Here too, signaling

implications may be pertinent. To determine whether a hesitation to ask for help is unwise in a

given context, we might also want to consider whether asking for help could convey a negative

signal about the asker (e.g., that they lack competence). A graduate student might be gratified to

know that asking their advisor for help with statistics is likely to yield a “yes” – and a less

awkward interaction than they were expecting – but might reasonably wonder whether admitting

to struggling with the task in the first place might say something damaging about their aptitude.

Our point isn’t that any of these factors make offering kind words or saying thank you or

asking for help a bad choice – although in certain circumstances seeming insincerely

complementary or appearing incompetent might be costly. Nor do we deny that people are

undersocial on average. Rather, we mean to suggest that issues of reputation and signaling are

relevant for identifying wise decision-making in social interactions, and that as such, they offer

opportunities for consumer researchers to extend and clarify theory about when socially

connecting behaviors will turn out better or worse than we imagine. Importantly, exploring such

intersections might reveal strategies for deepening interpersonal connections and deftly

managing reputational tradeoffs. Are their ways of offering kind words that not only feel

pleasant, but also seem authentic and heartfelt by observers? How might one ask for help without

implying incompetence? Kumar and Epley have set forth an intriguing account of the hedonic

aspects of such behaviors. We believe that consumer researchers can expand this account by

integrating other kinds of social costs and benefits.

 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Undersociality and Charitable Giving

Kumar and Epley’s conception of undersociality has thus far been applied primarily to

cases of interpersonal behavior, which makes sense given their focus on enriching social

connections and relationships. As alluded to above, some such cases involve social behaviors

that primarily benefit the actor (like asking for help) while others involve more prosocial actions,

that primarily aim to benefit the recipient (like saying thank you or offering a compliment). We

believe that consumer researchers could fruitfully extend this work by applying and testing

Kumar and Epley’s insights to an even clearer case of prosocial generosity: charitable giving.

At first glance, it might seem odd to apply a theory about strengthening interpersonal

connections to a context in which actor and recipient have limited or no interaction. But this is

also part of what makes the domain of charity an interesting test case. In some ways, giving to

charity is like paying a compliment. Both are prosocial and both have implications for actor and

recipient well-being. Moreover, like many social behaviors, there are hedonic costs and benefits

to donating: People experience ‘warm glow’ when they give, and they may contend with guilt if

they choose not to. But there are also interesting and relevant ways in which giving to charity is

different. Donors do not typically need to worry about longer-term relationship consequences of

giving to needy recipients, and, although donating is sometimes observed by third parties, in

many cases it is done anonymously. Methodologically, it is possible to vary anonymity and

social feedback, and thereby to unpack the different parts of the equation.

Extending Kumar and Epley’s logic to charitable giving opens a host of interesting

questions. Are people’s hedonic predictions – about how good it feels to give or how bad it feels

to say ‘no’ to a request – miscalibrated even when they will not receive positive feedback from

the recipients of their kind deeds? To what extent do donors accurately predict, or even consider,
 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
how good or bad it feels to be on the receiving end of anonymous or semi-anonymous aid? If

donors underestimate how good it feels to give or receive aid, and it is an open empirical

question whether they do, might correcting mistaken predictions encourage people to give more

and feel better than they otherwise might? More broadly, we are curious whether, from a hedonic

perspective, people are not only under-social, but also under-altruistic.

Research on undersociality in charity might also offer a useful counterpoint to research on

“ineffective altruism.” Recent work finds that donors give money inefficiently, often failing to

select causes and organizations where their donation could do the most good per dollar given.

One explanation for ineffective giving is that donors select causes that are personally relatable or

emotionally evocative over causes that have greater impact, but are less affecting (Berman et al.,

2018). The prevalence of ‘undersocial’ prediction errors uncovered elsewhere raises the

intriguing possibility that how people select causes to donate to ex ante (i.e., based on affect and

personal connection) may not deliver them maximal satisfaction ex post. If true, this represents a

potential point of influence for marketing interventions designed to increase effective giving.

Finally, extending Kumar and Epley’s approach to the domain of charitable giving may

increase its impact on consumer psychology theory and practice. Indeed, unlike starting a

conversation or saying thank you, making a donation is a consumption decision, one which

entails spending money for the purpose of increasing the donor or recipients’ utility or improving

general welfare. As such, it is perhaps more directly subject to marketing actions, and so offers a

clear use case for marrying emerging psychological theory with managerial practice. Moreover,

donations typically entail clearly quantifiable (monetary) costs: Charitable giving is a context in

which the costs of hedonic misprediction can be more easily weighed against the costs of

engaging in the relevant behavior. As a result, the context of charity may allow consumer
 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
researchers to integrate undersociality into broader theories describing how people budget and

spend their money, and to identify ways to nudge consumer spending towards improving their

and others’ well-being.

Conclusion

Kumar and Epley argue that social mispredictions lead people to avoid behaviors that

would increase social connection and foster well-being. Consumer psychologists are well-

positioned to test, refine, and expand this intriguing thesis by taking a broader lens on social

utility and by applying it to a wider range of consumption contexts. In so doing, we hope future

work will continue to investigate whether and when hesitancy to connect with others decreases

welfare and to explore what can be done about it.

 15327663, ja, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1333 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [12/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
REFERENCES

Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislations (reprinted

Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1948).

Berman, J. Z., Barasch, A., Levine, E. E., & Small, D. A. (2018). Impediments to effective
altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29, 834-
844.

Berman, J. Z., & Silver, I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and reputation: When does doing good lead
to looking good?. Current opinion in psychology, 43, 102-107.

Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of
experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 375-405.

Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2018). Undervaluing gratitude: Expressers misunderstand the
consequences of showing appreciation. Psychological Science, 29, 1423-1435.

Kumar, A. & Epley, N. (2023). Undersociality is unwise. Journal of Consumer Psychology,

33(1). [copyeditor: provide page numbers when available before printing]

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-
component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Silver, I., Newman, G., & Small, D. A. (2021). Inauthenticity aversion: Moral reactance toward
tainted actors, actions, and objects. Consumer Psychology Review, 4, 70-82.

Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 131-134.

Zhao, X., & Epley, N. (2021a). Insufficiently complimentary? Underestimating the positive
impact of compliments creates a barrier to expressing them. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 121, 239-256.

Zhao, X., & Epley, N. (in press). Surprisingly happy to have helped: Underestimating
prosociality creates a misplaced barrier to asking for help. Psychological Science.