See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323237450

Coke vs. Pepsi: Brand Compatibility, Relationship Power, and Life Satisfaction

Article  in  Journal of Consumer Research · February 2018

DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucx079

CITATIONS READS

7 2,998

4 authors, including:

Danielle Brick
Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire
19 PUBLICATIONS   738 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Danielle Brick on 07 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Coke vs. Pepsi: Brand Compatibility,
Relationship Power, and Life Satisfaction

DANIELLE J. BRICK

GRAINNE M. FITZSIMONS
TANYA L. CHARTRAND
GAVAN J. FITZSIMONS

Individuals often evaluate, purchase, and consume brands in the presence of

others, including close others. Yet relatively little is known about the role brand
preferences play in relationships. In the present research, the authors explore
how the novel concept of brand compatibility, defined as the extent to which indi-
viduals have similar brand preferences (e.g., both partners prefer the same brand
of soda), influences life satisfaction. The authors propose that when brand com-
patibility is high, life satisfaction will also be high. Conversely, because low brand
compatibility may be a source of conflict for the relationship, the authors propose
that it will be associated with reduced life satisfaction. Importantly, the authors pre-
dict that the effects of brand compatibility on conflict and life satisfaction will de-
pend upon relationship power. Across multiple studies and methodologies, includ-
ing experimental designs (studies 2, 3, 5) and dyadic data from real-life couples
(studies 1, 4, 6), the authors test and find support for their hypotheses. By explor-
ing how a potentially unique form of compatibility influences life satisfaction, in-
cluding identifying a key moderator and an underlying mechanism, the current re-
search contributes to the literatures on branding, close relationships, consumer
well-being, and relationship power.

Keywords: brand compatibility, close relationships, relationship power, consumer

well-being, multilevel modeling, actor-partner interdependence model

Corresponding author Danielle J. Brick (danielle.brick@unh.edu) is an

assistant professor of marketing at the Peter T. Paul College of Business
and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824.
Grainne M. Fitzsimons (grainne.fitzsimons@duke.edu) is an associate pro-
fessor of management and an associate professor of psychology and neu-
roscience at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC
27708. Tanya L. Chartrand (tanya.chartrand@duke.edu) is the Roy J.
Bostock Marketing Professor and professor of psychology and neurosci-
ence at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC
27708. Gavan J. Fitzsimons (gavan@duke.edu) is the R. David Thomas
Professor of Marketing and Psychology at the Fuqua School of Business,
Duke University, Durham, NC 27708. This article is based on the first
author’s dissertation. The authors are grateful for the constructive com-
ments and helpful suggestions provided by the editor, associate editor, and
three anonymous reviewers. In addition, they would like to thank Jim
Bettman for his invaluable feedback. Supplementary materials are in-
cluded in the web appendix accompanying the online version of this
article.
Gita Johar served as editor and Sharon Shavitt served as associate editor
for this article.
Advance Access publication June 28, 2017
C The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.
V
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com  Vol. 44  2018
C onsider for a moment some of your favorite brands.
For example, perhaps Coke, Starbucks, and Crest are
your favorite brands of soda, coffee, and toothpaste, re-
spectively. Now think about your partner’s favorite brands
in the same product categories. Perhaps your partner likes
the same brands, or, perhaps your partner prefers Pepsi,
Dunkin’ Donuts, and Colgate. Does this compatibility, or
lack of compatibility, matter? In the present research, we
propose that brand preferences within close relationships
do matter, and that they can have significant consequences,
including influencing life satisfaction. To investigate this
proposition, we introduce the term brand compatibility,
which we define as the extent to which individuals in close
relationships share similar brand preferences, and we ex-
amine whether brand compatibility is related to life
satisfaction.
Importantly, we hypothesize that the link between brand
compatibility and life satisfaction will depend upon power
in the relationship. Power is typically defined as the ability
DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucx079

991
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
 992
to control valued resources and the capacity to influence
the behavior of others (Anderson and Galinsky 2006;
Emerson 1962; French and Raven 1959; Keltner,
Gruenfeld, and Anderson 2003). Imagine that you and your
partner have different brand preferences. Now imagine that
you perceive you have a lot of power in the relationship.
Most likely, your partner’s preferences would not affect
your day-to-day consumer decisions. You would probably
still drink Coke and go to Starbucks. Further, research has
shown that high-power individuals are less likely to notice
the attitudes and opinions of their lower-power counter-
parts (Berdahl and Martorana 2006; Fiske 1993), so you
might not even be aware that your partner prefers Pepsi
and Dunkin’ Donuts. Thus, brand (in)compatibility most
likely would not be an issue for you. On the other hand,
imagine that you do not have a lot of power in the relation-
ship. In this situation, you are more likely to be aware of
your partner’s different brand preferences as you find your-
self drinking more Pepsi and stopping at Dunkin’ Donuts
more often than you would prefer. Given that these differ-
ences are more pronounced for low-power partners, you
may view the relationship as having more disagreements or
greater conflict, which in turn may lead to lower happiness
in your day-to-day life.
Thus, we suggest that the link between brand compatibil-
ity, conflict, and life satisfaction depends upon whether one
is relatively high or low in power within one’s romantic re-
lationship. When one is high in power, then one should be
able to control relationship outcomes and get the brands that
one prefers. Thus, we predict that for those who are high in
relationship power, brand compatibility will not affect life
satisfaction presumably because they are able to acquire
their preferred brands regardless of their partner’s preferen-
ces. Conversely, when one is low in relationship power, one
is less likely to get the brands that one prefers. As a result,
lower-power partners may be more likely to perceive greater
conflict in the relationship. Therefore, we predict that for
lower-power individuals, brand compatibility will be related
to life satisfaction. Specifically, when brand compatibility is
high, life satisfaction will also be high because there is no
conflict—lower-power individuals are able to enjoy their
preferred brands (which are the same as their partner’s pre-
ferred brands). But for low-power individuals, when brand
compatibility is low, perceived conflict should be increased
and life satisfaction will be reduced. We test these predic-
tions across six studies, using a mix of dyadic studies of real
relationship partners and experimental studies that allow us
to manipulate perceptions of brand compatibility, and thus
provide causal evidence for its importance above and be-
yond other types of compatibility. In addition, we provide
evidence that perception of conflict is the mechanism
through which brand compatibility and power interact to in-
fluence life satisfaction.
The present research makes several contributions. First,
we explore a new construct, brand compatibility, and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
demonstrate that it can have important downstream conse-
quences for life satisfaction. By connecting this consumer
construct to a well-established marker of psychological
well-being, our findings support the importance of con-
sumer behavioral constructs to the health and well-being
literature (Diener and Biswas-Diener 2002; Fredrickson
and Joiner 2002). Second, we explore how brand preferen-
ces intersect with relationship contexts, contributing to bur-
geoning efforts to understand how consumer behavior both
shapes and is shaped by social relationships (Corfman and
Lehmann 1987; Dzhogleva and Lamberton 2014; Lowe
and Haws 2014; Luo 2005; Park 1982; Raghunathan and
Corfman 2006; Steffel and Le Boeuf 2014). Third, our
findings illustrate the importance of brand preferences in
relationships. Relationship scholars have long been inter-
ested in compatibility (Blossfeld 2009; Bramlett and
Mosher 2002; Byrne 1971; Gonzaga, Campos, and
Bradbury 2007; Little and Perrett 2002; Mare 1991;
Rusbult et al. 2009), but most theorists have argued that
similarity of important values such as religion and ethical
beliefs is what matters. In the current studies, we show that
even mundane, everyday forms of compatibility, such as
brand compatibility, can have significant consequences
both for the relationship, in terms of perceived conflict,
and for the individual, in terms of life satisfaction. Our
findings support classic theoretical arguments that social
similarities (e.g., race, religion) are likely to be only mod-
estly related to how well couples get along, whereas areas
of similarity that affect the day-to-day decisions partners
make are likely to be more important (Levinger and
Breedlove 1966; Levinger and Rands 1985). Fourth, our
findings point to the importance of studying power in close
relationships. While most research on power explores orga-
nizational and broader social contexts, recently theorists
have highlighted the need to reintroduce the power concept
to the study of close relationships (Simpson et al. 2014;
Simpson, Griskevicius, and Rothman 2012). In particular,
the current research challenges the long-held assumption in
the relationship literature that compatibility is inherently
good (Acitelli, Douvan, and Veroff 1993; Byrne 1971;
Montoya, Horton, and Kirchner 2008; Murray et al. 2002);
instead, our findings suggest that compatibility may matter
primarily for those who perceive having low power in the
relationship.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Brand Compatibility
Brands play many roles in consumers’ day-to-day lives.
As brands can represent one’s identity, personality, beliefs,
social connections, culture, and heritage (Escalas and
Bettman 2003; Holt 2002; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; Ng
and Houston 2006; Park and John 2010), individuals may
use brands to communicate to others who they are or to
 BRICK ET AL.
represent their self (Belk 1988; Berger and Heath 2007;
Escalas and Bettman 2005; Malhotra 1988). Research has
shown that individuals may use brands as relationship part-
ners (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Aggarwal 2004;
Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Fournier 1998; Park et al. 2010;
Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), or individuals may
merely use brands as a heuristic to help guide choice in a
world increasingly overrun with options (Aaker and Keller
1990; Hoeffler and Keller 2003; Keller 1993). Regardless
of the reason, individuals commonly evaluate, purchase,
and consume their preferred brands.
Although individuals typically consume the brands that
they prefer, there are situations in which they may not be
able to do so. For example, workplace lunches provide cer-
tain brands of soda; certain shopping centers have only one
coffee shop. When brand preferences are constrained by
situational factors, consumers tend to feel less satisfied
with the experience (Clee and Wicklund 1980; Fitzsimons
2000). We suggest that close relationships, in addition to
stockouts and other consumer variables (e.g., time,
money), can also constrain the expression of brand prefer-
ences. Indeed, close relationships are one of the strongest,
most controlling, and long-term types of social situations,
so their opportunity for influence is extremely high
(Thibaut and Kelley 1959). As close relationships involve
repeated, frequent interactions in diverse settings, and
strong mutual interdependence whereby the outcomes of
one’s decisions affect both the other person and the rela-
tionship itself (Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto 1989; Kelley
2013; Thibaut and Kelley 1959), individuals are often con-
strained by their partner’s preferences and the demands of
the relationship. This constraint should be especially evi-
dent and influential in everyday life when the partners
have different consumer preferences, including brand pref-
erences, and be most likely to influence life satisfaction.
To illustrate why brand preferences may matter, con-
sider the following two scenarios. Imagine you and your
partner are looking for a new car. You have always wanted
an Audi. In the first scenario, imagine your partner also
loves Audi. You buy the Audi and are both happy. In this
first scenario, you and your partner have high brand com-
patibility, defined as the degree to which individuals have
similar brand preferences. However, imagine a second sce-
nario in which your partner does not like Audi. Instead,
your partner prefers Lexus cars, and in this scenario, you
get the Lexus. This is obviously not a terrible situation (it
is still a luxury car brand), but it is not the car brand you
had always wanted.
Now imagine you are driving with your partner to get
coffee. First, imagine you and your partner both like
Starbucks. There is no conflict. You stop at Starbucks, you
both get to enjoy the coffee you prefer, and you are on
your way. However, in the second scenario, you like
Starbucks, but your partner prefers Dunkin’ Donuts. Where
do you stop? Ideally, you stop at both places, but perhaps
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
993
due to time constraints you can stop at only one. Further,
imagine that instead of just one time, this is your daily
commute to work. This simple brand decision, which brand
of coffee to buy, is part of your everyday life as a couple.
Daily, you find yourself driving in the Lexus (the car you
did not want), drinking Dunkin’ Donuts (coffee that is not
your favorite).
Extending beyond the car and coffee example, you, as a
couple, may also have to choose between two different
brands of soda, beer, or even toilet paper to purchase and
consume at home. In the moment, and over time, these
small, seemingly trivial brand choices may have conse-
quences. High brand compatibility means that both part-
ners’ desire to satisfy their brand preferences can be easily
accomplished, in the moment and on a regular, daily basis,
and we conjecture that it may be influential in the couple’s
overall well-being, as is fulfillment of other goals and
needs in everyday life (Emmons 1986; Emmons and King
1988). On the other hand, over the lifetime of a relation-
ship, low brand compatibility means that a couple is likely
to make hundreds or thousands of small decisions in which
the two partners cannot both satisfy their preferred out-
come. Having dissimilar brand preferences, or low brand
compatibility, thus creates multiple opportunities for con-
flict and presents a challenge to the couple. If you really
like Diet Coke, Starbucks, and Audis but find yourself
drinking your partner’s favorites, Diet Pepsi and Dunkin’
Donuts, and driving a Lexus, you might perceive greater
conflict in the relationship and be less happy. This is what
we propose in the current research: that low brand compati-
bility will be associated with greater perceived conflict and
reduced life satisfaction for those partners who fall on the
“losing” side of incompatible preferences (i.e., those low
in power; see the following section). We propose this will
happen both in the moment—that people will temporarily
feel less satisfied—and over time, as these experiences ac-
cumulate in memory.
The potential costs and benefits of similarity in relation-
ships has been a topic of immense interest in the relation-
ships literature for decades (Acitelli et al. 1993; Bramlett
and Mosher 2002; Byrne 1971; Dyrenforth et al. 2010;
Houts, Robins, and Huston 1996; Montoya et al. 2008;
Watson et al. 2004), but compatibility researchers have
more typically focused on deeply held values like religious
beliefs and political ideologies (Heaton and Pratt 1990)
and on personality traits (Blum and Mehrabian 1999;
Glicksohn and Golan 2001). Here, we extend the logic of
compatibility to study a far more mundane and everyday
type of similarity—namely, brand preferences. Importantly
(and this is where our research turns away from the stan-
dard assumption that compatibility is straightforwardly
beneficial), we suggest that these two situations—of high
and low compatibility—are of differential importance to
the members of the couple, depending on how much power
each partner holds in the relationship.
 994
Power in Relationships
Power is a common and pervasive component of social
interactions and relationships (Anderson, John, and Keltner
2012; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and Magee 2003). Power is
commonly defined as having relative control over valued
resources and capacity to influence the behavior of others
(Anderson and Galinsky 2006; Emerson 1962; French and
Raven 1959; Keltner et al. 2003; Magee and Galinsky
2008), while resisting the influence of others over oneself
(Cromwell and Olson 1975). Power in close or romantic
relationships can be thought of similarly—as the capacity
to influence outcomes in the relationship. In the current re-
search, we focus directly on perceived relationship power.
We assume that perceived relationship power is related to
decisions and experiences within the relationship, includ-
ing the outcomes of brand decisions. That is, we assume
that partners who perceive themselves as high power more
reliably obtain and consume their desired brands than do
partners who perceive themselves as low power. Although
this has not been experimentally demonstrated, it appears
to be a safe assumption: by definition, partners who are rel-
atively higher in power are more likely to report obtaining
their desired outcomes. Indeed, providing some support for
the notion, historical research on gender and family deci-
sion making suggested that men reported greater power
and reported controlling more of the important purchasing
decisions in families (Filiatraut and Ritchie 1980; Kirchler
1993). If this logic extends to minor brand decisions in ev-
eryday life, partners who perceive higher power should
more frequently consume the brands they want to
consume.
This tendency for high-power partners to “get what they
want” may occur via several interrelated mechanisms.
First, and most simply, they may just control the outcomes
directly, by demands or pressure on their partners
(Simpson et al. 2014). The Starbucks-loving high-power
partner may simply scoff at the suggestion of stopping at
Dunkin’ Donuts. However, the process may also emerge
from subtler and more indirect psychological dynamics in
the couple. High-power individuals are more likely to ex-
press their opinions to others (Berdahl and Martorana
2006); thus, perhaps high-power partners will simply make
their brand preferences known to their partners more often
or more clearly. High-power individuals have also been
shown to be more impervious to others’ attitudes. For ex-
ample, they have a reduced tendency for perspective taking
and comprehending how others think and feel (Galinsky
et al. 2006) and are less motivated to attend to others’
thoughts and behaviors (Fiske 1993; Keltner et al. 2003).
Thus, high-power partners are less likely to notice the dis-
crepant preferences of their relationship partners, which
likely reduces the chance they would consider those prefer-
ences in their brand choices. In the realm of decision
making, consumers high in power tended to discount
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
others’ opinions (Mourali and Yang 2013). Third, high-
power individuals may be less likely to value their part-
ners’ preferences. For example, consumers led to feel high
in power spent more on purchases for themselves, and less
on purchases for others, while consumers led to feel low in
power showed the reverse pattern, spending more on pur-
chases for others (Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky 2011).
As a result of these dynamics, in everyday life, individu-
als who perceive greater power in the relationship are more
likely to obtain their desired brands regardless of their part-
ner’s preferences. Therefore, we predict that for high-
power individuals, brand compatibility is not a particularly
important construct in determining their quality of life or
sense of well-being. If they have high brand compatibility
with their romantic partner, that is great, but if not, that is
still good—their own outcomes are relatively unaffected
by their partner’s preferences. In other words, differences
in brand preferences should not be perceived as a source of
conflict for high-power partners. Thus, we predict that for
individuals who are high in power, brand compatibility
will not affect life satisfaction.
Quite in contrast, low-power partners, by definition, are
less likely to have control over outcomes within the rela-
tionship, including brand choices. Low-power partners are
much less likely to attempt to control the outcome directly
through pressure or demands (Simpson et al. 2014). In ad-
dition, they have been found to express their opinions to
others less (Berdahl and Martorana 2006), and they are
more likely to pay attention to the preferences, attitudes,
and feelings of their partners (Fiske 1993; Keltner et al.
2003). Furthermore, research has shown that they conform
to other people’s opinions (Mourali and Yang 2013) and
value their outcomes (Rucker et al. 2011). Consequently,
they may be more likely simply to know their partner’s
preferred brands and to conform to them when making
brand choices, even if those preferences do not reflect their
own. For these reasons, low-power individuals are rela-
tively less likely to “win” in conflicts over brand preferen-
ces in close relationships. As a result, brand compatibility
may play a much larger role for low-power partners. Given
this reasoning, we hypothesize that the construct of brand
compatibility should be of particular importance in predict-
ing the well-being, in terms of relationship conflict and life
satisfaction, of low-power individuals.
CURRENT RESEARCH
In the current research, we investigate how power dy-
namics and brand preferences in close romantic relation-
ships affect life satisfaction. As high-power partners are
less likely to be aware of their partners’ preferences
(Berdahl and Martorana 2006; Fiske 1993) and more likely
to perceive control over outcomes within the relationship
(Galinsky et al. 2003; Simpson et al. 2012), including
 BRICK ET AL.
brand outcomes, we predict that brand compatibility will
not affect life satisfaction for high-power individuals. On
the other hand, we predict that for low-power individuals,
as brand compatibility decreases, so too will life satisfac-
tion. As low-power individuals are more likely to be aware
of differences in brand preferences and less likely to per-
ceive control over outcomes, they will have less control
over consumption decisions relative to their partner, mak-
ing the similarity of the two partners’ preferences very
important to their outcomes. We further predict that low-
power partners will perceive greater conflict in the
relationship when brand compatibility is low. This greater
conflict will in turn contribute to their reduced life
satisfaction.
We tested these hypotheses across six studies (and one
direct replication). As this is a new construct, in our first
study we examined whether brand compatibility between
romantic partners was related to life satisfaction and other
forms of compatibility. In our second study, we experi-
mentally manipulated perceived brand compatibility and
measured relationship power and life satisfaction. In our
third study, we experimentally manipulated perceived
power in the relationship and measured brand compatibil-
ity and life satisfaction. In our fourth study, we simulta-
neously measured brand compatibility, power, and life
satisfaction in a laboratory setting with both members of
romantic couples. In dyadic analyses, we used the Actor-
Partner Interdependence Model (Kenny, Kashy, and Cook
2006) to further investigate how power influences the
effect of brand compatibility on life satisfaction. We ex-
plored the possibility of an actor-by-partner interaction,
examining whether the strongest effect of brand compati-
bility on life satisfaction would emerge for low-power
individuals with high-power partners. In our fifth study,
we examined potential mechanisms of this effect. Using a
scenario study in which we were able to manipulate both
brand compatibility and relationship power, we explored
the role of perceived conflict. Finally, in our sixth study,
we again examined both members of romantic couples to
examine the dyadic effects, and test the notion that brand
compatibility and power’s interactive effect on life satis-
faction is mediated by perceptions of conflict within the
relationship. If high-power individuals are not aware of or
affected by incompatibility, they should be less likely to
perceive conflict. If low-power individuals are more aware
of their partner’s preferences and more affected by incom-
patibility, they should perceive greater relationship con-
flict, and thus, feel less satisfied with their lives.
Across all of the studies, we report all data exclusions (if
any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study (with
the exceptions noted below). First, for each study involving
both members of the couple, sample sizes were based on
subject availability as well as the needs of unrelated re-
search projects that were run in conjunction with data col-
lection. For studies using online participants, sample sizes
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
995
were determined a priori. No additional data were collected
after data analyses began (with the exception of study 2, in
which additional conditions were added in response to re-
viewer request). In some experiments, as indicated in the
text, we included additional irrelevant measures, such as
filler items or measures for other research projects. As dis-
cussed in the methods section of study 4, data from this
study were collected in two waves during multistudy
events with other researchers in the lab; we do not have ac-
cess to all those measures or data. Finally, in study 6, a
multiwave, longitudinal dyadic study, not all measures in
the study are reported due to the sheer number of variables
and measures. All measures related to the hypotheses are
described, and only the described measures were analyzed
for the current hypothesis.
STUDY 1
As this is the first research to examine the role of brand
compatibility on life satisfaction, we first sought to explore
whether brand compatibility is associated with life satisfac-
tion and other forms of compatibility. In study 1, we survey
both partners within a couple. We ask them about various
measures that are commonly examined in similarity and
compatibility research (race, religion, personality, values,
etc.). In addition, we ask each partner to report his/her own
brand preferences and measure life satisfaction, or general
happiness with how one’s life is going, as the dependent
variable. By comparing the participant and the partner on
each domain, we are thus able to construct objective meas-
ures of these various forms of compatibility using outside
raters.
Method
Participants. We recruited participants from the local
farmer’s market in a southeastern city. In order to partici-
pate, participants had to be in a relationship with their part-
ner for at least six months and living with their partner for
at least three months. Both partners had to be present and
willing to complete the survey in order to participate. Both
partners of 63 romantic relationships (52% female, 1%
trans, 1% both, 1% neither) completed the survey. Due to
comprehension/incomplete data issues, two participants
and their partners were excluded from all analyses.
Partners ranged in age from 25 to 70 years with an average
age of 40.67 years (SD ¼ 12.94) and had been in a relation-
ship for 13.61 years on average (SD ¼ 12.96). Couples re-
ceived financial compensation in exchange for their
participation.
Measures and Procedure. After indicating consent,
each partner was given a clipboard with a survey and told
that there were several parts to the survey. Each partner
was instructed to complete the survey separately and to not
 996
discuss their responses with their partner. For each of the
compatibility factors we created a compatibility score for
each couple. (Note: We repeated the analyses using various
coding schemes, to ensure that the results are not driven by
the use of any specific type of coding scheme.)
Brand Compatibility. Each partner was asked to list
his/her favorite brand in each of the following five catego-
ries: coffee, chocolate, car, beer, and soda. We selected
these categories because they are common categories
wherein most individuals in our sample would have experi-
ence with different brands, and in which individuals gener-
ally have specific brand preferences. In addition, they are
categories in which individuals regularly make choices and
wherein a partner is repeatedly exposed to these choices
(e.g., every time they drive the household car they are
reminded of their partner’s preference, or every time they
open the fridge they may see their partner’s brand of soda,
or every time they pass a Starbucks they are reminded of
their partner’s favorite brand of coffee). Furthermore, these
categories vary in terms of price and type (e.g., durable vs.
nondurable). Essentially, we simply sought to sample a
wide variety of product types.
Four undergraduate research assistants blind to the hy-
pothesis of the study rated each of the brand pairs (i.e.,
how the brand that partner 1 within couple 1 listed as his/
her favorite compared with the brand that partner 2 within
couple 1 listed as his/her favorite) within a product cate-
gory on a 1 (completely incompatible) to 5 (completely
compatible) scale. Coders were instructed to evaluate the
brands on how compatible, or similar, one partner’s brand
was with the other partner’s brand. Each coder was given
some examples of brand compatibility coding using the
category of soda. They were told that the exact same brand
response within a couple for a category, such as partner 1
responding with Diet Coke and partner 2 also responding
with Diet Coke, would be a 5. Brands that are close but not
exact, such as partner 1 responding Coke and partner 2
responding Diet Coke, would be a 4. A 2 or 3 would be
given for brand pairs that are not identical, but not compet-
itors. For example, if partner 1 said Coke and Partner 2
said Sprite, they would be given a 3. These brands are not
completely compatible, but have an overarching relation-
ship—in this case, that they are owned by the same parent
company. Competitor or opposite brands would be coded
as a 1. For example, if partner 1 said Coke and partner 2
said Diet Pepsi, they would be given a 1. This coding
scheme has the advantage of allowing us to differentiate
between responses such as “No preference” from “I don’t
like soda,” which would have different implications for the
couple. For example, if a participant said he liked Coke but
his partner said she had no preference, this would be coded
as more compatible than if the participant said he liked
Coke, but his partner said she does not like soda. In the for-
mer case, purchasing a 12-pack of Coke could satisfy both
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
partners, whereas in the latter case no brand of soda will
satisfy both partners.1 In addition, coders were told that
this is a subjective rating—that there are no right or wrong
answers, but that they should be consistent in their ratings.
Coders were told that if they had any questions about the
brands, they could look them up online. The four coders’
ratings were averaged to create a brand compatibility score
for each brand category (Mbeer ¼ 2.41, SD ¼ 1.22; Mcar ¼
2.69, SD ¼ 1.20; Mchoc ¼ 2.81, SD ¼ 1.38; Mcoffee ¼ 3.22,
SD ¼ 1.34; Msoda ¼ 3.00, SD ¼ 1.47). Coders were highly
reliable within each brand category (interrater reliability:
beer a ¼ .89; car a ¼ .91; chocolate a ¼ .93; coffee a ¼
.94; soda a ¼ .94). Brand categories were then averaged to
create one mean brand compatibility score for each couple,
which served as the independent variable.
Other Measures of Compatibility. The following were
included as additional measures of compatibility: age, edu-
cation, race, religiousness, religion, political orientation,
personality, and values. We selected these items and calcu-
lated similarity within couples based on previous research
in similarity and compatibility (Houts et al. 1996; Watson
et al. 2004; see Finkel et al. 2012 for a review). (Please see
the web appendix for detailed descriptions regarding the
coding of these items.)2
1 Some may wonder why we oriented compatibility around brand
family (e.g., Coke products) rather than around attribute level similar-
ity (e.g., diet soda). We suggest both a conceptual and an empirical re-
sponse to this important question. From a conceptual point of view,
research has demonstrated that individuals form relationships and
attachments with brands themselves—that is, brand families (Aaker,
Fournier, and Brasel 2004; Aggarwal 2004; Carroll and Ahuvia 2006;
Fournier 1998; Park et al. 2010; Thomson et al. 2005) as opposed to
attributes. In addition, many structural factors and environmental cues
lead individuals to cognitively organize products around brand fami-
lies. For example, packaging elements are often consistent across
products within brand families (the shape of the bottle for Coca-Cola
products; the color scheme across all Colgate toothpastes, etc.); most
product categories in grocery stores are organized by brand family as
opposed to attribute, even more so in categories where distribution is
done by the brand directly (e.g., Lindt’s dark chocolate is next to
Lindt’s white chocolate, Pepsi products are grouped together sepa-
rately from Coke products); and promotional efforts within stores of-
ten operate at the level of the brand family rather than at an attribute
level (e.g., “buy three for $12”–style offers or “buy two, get one free”
offers). From an empirical perspective, note that we employed alterna-
tive coding approaches across the studies, one of which gave no spe-
cific instructions in terms of how the coders should define brand
compatibility. The coders simply rated which brands they thought
were compatible with which other brands. This coding approach
yielded extremely similar results to our original compatibility coding
as well as to the specific coding scheme that gave individual examples
within each product category. If people naturally judged brand com-
patibility, or similarity, according to product attributes, this unstruc-
tured approach should have yielded a different pattern of results from
the other two approaches. That was not the case—results were consis-
tent across coding schemes.
2 We repeated the analyses using various coding schemes to ensure
that the results are not driven by the use of any one specific type of
coding scheme. All results are similar. See the web appendix for addi-
tional models.
 BRICK ET AL. 997

Each partner also completed the Satisfaction with Life TABLE 1

Scale (Diener et al. 1985; a ¼ .85). (Note: This measure REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS PREDICTING LIFE
was completed third, after participants indicated their fa- SATISFACTION IN STUDY 1
vorite brands and completed the values measure.) This is a
well-established measure of life satisfaction, commonly Variable Estimate Standard Error t-test p value
used in research on well-being (Aknin et al. 2013; Intercept 5.46 0.09 59.28 .000
Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Cohn et al. 2009; Diener Brand compatibility 0.40 0.15 2.66 .01
and Biswas-Diener 2002; Diener et al. 2010; Luhmann Age 0.02 0.09 0.18 .86
et al. 2012; Martin and Hill 2012) and has been shown to Race –0.23 0.15 –1.56 .12
Political orientation 0.09 0.09 0.98 .33
correlate highly with other important measures of well- Religiousness 0.09 0.08 1.22 .23
being and quality of life, such as health, happiness, and self- Education –0.06 0.09 –0.66 .52
determination (Arrindell, Meeuwesen, and Huyse 1991; Personality (Big 5) –0.01 0.18 –0.07 .95
Values (LOV) 0.15 0.30 0.51 .61
Diener 2012; Pavot and Diener 1993). The measure asks
participants to evaluate their life overall, and provide a gen- Dependent variable: life satisfaction; AIC 312.323.
eral sense of how well things are going. For example, items
include “In most ways my life is close to my ideal” and “I
am satisfied with my life.” Participants completed additional
items, including filler items and demographic items. could be more influential than similarity in age or religious
preferences. We have several thoughts as to why this pat-
tern of associations emerged.
Results First, it is important to acknowledge that mixed results
We investigated whether brand compatibility predicted on the big compatibility dimensions (e.g., age, race, reli-
life satisfaction while controlling for other variables. We gion, personality) are the norm in this field (Tidwell,
used a multilevel modeling approach (Kenny et al. 2006), Eastwick, and Finkel 2013). For example, in the study of
with individuals nested within couples to account for viola- sociodemographic similarity, although some research has
tions of statistical independence. Life satisfaction served as shown that marriages between individuals of the same
our outcome variable, and brand compatibility, race com- race, religious denomination, parental wealth, and earned
patibility, political orientation compatibility, religiousness income are longer-lasting and more satisfying (Bramlett
compatibility, education compatibility, personality compat- and Mosher 2002; Heaton and Pratt 1990; Weisfeld et al.
ibility, and value compatibility served as our predictor 1992), other research has failed to find similar benefits
variables. All of the predictor variables were grand mean- (Houts et al. 1996; Watson et al. 2004), while still other re-
centered (Aiken and West 1991; Kenny et al. 2006). search has found positive associations for some variables,
When we controlled for various other forms of compati- but weak or inconsistent associations for others (Gaunt
bility, brand compatibility was significantly and positively 2006). In the study of personality, some researchers have
associated with life satisfaction (B ¼ .40, t (51.74) ¼ 2.66, found positive effects for personality similarity (Luo and
p ¼ .010). See table 1 for details about all of the predictor Klohnen 2005; Robins, Caspi, and Moffitt 2000), while
variables, and the web appendix for information and a table others have found that after they controlled for the main
regarding correlations of all variables. We note that these effects of each partner’s personality, similarity between
results were robust across a wide array of models including personalities had a weak relation to romantic outcomes
various coding schemes of compatibility, such as absolute (Blum and Mehrabian 2001; Dyrenforth et al. 2010;
difference versus difference score approaches. We report Glicksohn and Golan 2001; Tidwell et al. 2013). Indeed,
the model that offers the best fit (e.g., lowest AIC of all the some research has even found that personality similarity
models, most parsimonious). (For information regarding has a negative predictive effect on marital satisfaction
the other models and correlations, please see the web (Shiota and Levenson 2007).
appendix.) Second, we suggest that brand compatibility produced a
stronger correlation precisely because it is a relatively
mundane, everyday type of compatibility. As early as
Discussion 1966, Levinger and Breedlove “emphasized the importance
In the present research, we find that brand compatibility of identifying areas of similarity that bear upon the day-to-
within couples is related to other forms of compatibility, day decisions partners make” (Houts et al. 1996). It may be
namely education, race, and values. We also find that, the case that small, everyday decisions are the ones that
when all forms of compatibility are simultaneously entered more directly affect couples’ sense of well-being, as com-
as predictors, brand compatibility remains an important, pared with broader and overarching variables like personal-
and significant, predictor of life satisfaction. One might ity and religion. Because individuals commonly evaluate,
wonder how similarity in soda (i.e., brand) preferences purchase, and consume brands in the presence of close

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334

by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
 998
others, over time the significance of brand choices within a
relationship accumulates. Due to their symbolic nature plus
the consumer tendency to repeatedly purchase brands,
brands represent a salient source of similarity (or potential
dissimilarity) in close relationships. Thus, it is possible that
brand compatibility is a more specific or idiosyncratic
measure of compatibility, and therefore, likelier to be more
predictive than general measures. The main aim of the
study was to investigate the extent of the overlap among
brand compatibility and previously studied forms of com-
patibility. In line with our theorizing, there is evidence to
suggest that the various forms of compatibility are rela-
tively distinct, and that brand compatibility does seem to
have some unique predictive power. On the question of
whether brand compatibility is a better or weaker predictor
than other forms of compatibility, we are certainly not sug-
gesting brands are the only important form of compatibil-
ity, but merely one such form, due to their ubiquity in
everyday life. Importantly, we predict that the effect of
brand compatibility on different outcomes will be related
to relationship power. We test this prediction in the rest of
the studies.
STUDY 2
Study 2 tests our prediction that the effects of brand
compatibility on life satisfaction will depend upon power
in the relationship. Because high-power individuals have
been shown to project their attitudes and feelings on to
others (Keltner et al. 2003; Overbeck and Droutman 2013),
measuring both brand compatibility and power from one
partner could result in biased responses. Therefore, in our
second study, we manipulate perceptions of brand compati-
bility. We hypothesize that for high-power partners, there
will be no effect of brand compatibility condition on life
satisfaction; however, for low-power partners, we predict
that low brand compatibility will be associated with de-
creased life satisfaction, compared with high brand
compatibility.
Method
Participants. Three hundred twenty-five participants
(46% men) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed
the study in exchange for financial compensation. In order
to participate, individuals had to be in a romantic relation-
ship for at least six months and in the United States.
Participants ranged in age from 19 to 73 years with an aver-
age age of 35.41 years (SD ¼ 11.62) and had been in a rela-
tionship for 6.76 years on average (SD ¼ 7.99).
Measures and Procedure. After individuals indicated
consent, they were told that there were several parts to the
study and that the researchers were interested in different
topics. Participants first completed the Relationship Power
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Measure (a ¼ .91), which we created by adapting items
from the Personal Sense of Power scale (Anderson et al.
2012). The scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Instructions indicated that participants
should consider their current romantic relationship when
answering items. Example items include, “I can get my
partner to listen to what I say,” “My wishes do not carry
much weight,” and “I think I have a great deal of power.”
(See the appendix for items.)
We manipulated perceived brand compatibility using an
ease-of-retrieval manipulation (Schwarz et al. 1991).
Specifically, participants in the high-brand-compatibility
condition saw two lines in the survey and were asked to list
two favorite brands that they had in common with their
partner. Participants in the low-brand-compatibility condi-
tion saw eight lines in the survey and were asked to list up
to eight brands. Participants had to list a response in the
space provided, either a brand name or “NA,” in order to
move on to the next question in the survey, to maximize
the experience of ease versus difficulty in the two condi-
tions. In order to be consistent with wording across the two
conditions all participants were told the following:
Some people in relationships are very compatible in their
brand preferences. In other words, their favorite brand of
soda is their partner’s favorite brand of soda. Other couples
are less compatible in their brand preferences and their fa-
vorite brand in a product category is different from their
partner’s.
In the spaces below, please list brands that both you and
your partner consider to be your favorite in that product cat-
egory. For example, if you and your partner have the same
favorite brand of soda, chocolate, coffee, car, beer, etc., you
would enter the brand name in the space below.
Please enter as many shared favorite brands that you and
your partner have as you can. If you run out of shared favor-
ite brands, then please enter “NA.”
Next, participants completed the same Satisfaction with
Life Scale (Diener et al. 1985; a ¼ .80) used in the previ-
ous study. Finally, participants completed demographic
items—age, gender, relationship type, and relationship
length.
Results
Post-Test Manipulation Check. We failed to include a
manipulation check in the original study, and thus con-
ducted a post-hoc manipulation check. Four hundred fif-
teen participants (49% men) from Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk were recruited. Individuals had to be in a relationship
for at least six months and in the United States in order to
participate. Participants were randomized to either the
same high- or low-brand-compatibility condition as used in
the main study. As our measure of compatibility, partici-
pants were asked to indicate the extent to which they
 BRICK ET AL.
agreed or disagreed with the following statements on a
seven-point scale: “My partner and I like the same brands,”
“My partner and I are very compatible in our brand prefer-
ences,” and “My partner and I have similar brand prefer-
ences.” We combined these items to form one measure of
perceived compatibility (a ¼ .95). Two participants indi-
cated generic categories (e.g., car, restaurants) and were
excluded from the analyses. Because the majority of partic-
ipants viewed themselves as compatible or highly compati-
ble with their partner (85% of the average responses were
in the upper half of the scale), we log-transformed the data
(Bagchi and Cheema 2013; Dzhogleva and Lamberton
2014). As predicted, individuals in the high-brand-compat-
ibility condition reported significantly greater compatibil-
ity (M ¼ 5.23, SD ¼ 1.16) than did individuals in the low-
brand-compatibility condition (M ¼ 5.01, SD ¼ 1.36;
t(411) ¼ 2.08, p < .04).
Main Analyses. Two participants indicated that they
were single, and were therefore excluded from the analy-
ses. In addition, six participants’ mean power scores were
more than three SDs below the mean and were excluded
(Smith et al. 2008), leaving 317 participants. To investigate
our hypothesis that low brand compatibility would be asso-
ciated with decreased life satisfaction for low (but not
high) power partners, we conducted a linear regression,
with life satisfaction as the outcome variable, and brand
compatibility and mean-centered power as the predictor
variables. Results revealed a main effect for power (b ¼
.37, t(313) ¼ 7.09, p < .0001), such that greater power was
associated with greater life satisfaction. There was no main
effect of brand compatibility condition (b ¼ .049, t(313) ¼
0.94, p ¼ .35) on life satisfaction.
Importantly, in line with our predictions, and as illus-
trated in figure 1, results revealed a significant interaction
(b ¼ .11, t(313) ¼ 2.08 p < .04). Because we were inter-
ested in whether the effects of brand compatibility on life
satisfaction differ depending upon power in the relation-
ship, we first examined whether life satisfaction differed
across the brand compatibility conditions for high-power
individuals. In line with our predictions, we found that for
high-power participants (þ1 SD above the mean), life sat-
isfaction did not differ across the two brand compatibility
conditions (t(313) ¼ .81; p ¼ .42; 95% CI: –.19 to .47).
However, for low-power participants (–1 SD), the effect of
brand compatibility condition on life satisfaction was sig-
nificant (t(313) ¼ 2.14; p ¼ .03; 95% CI: –.69 to –.03).
Specifically, lower-power participants in the low-brand-
compatibility condition reported significantly lower life
satisfaction than did individuals in the high-brand-compati-
bility condition (figure 1). In addition, we conducted a
floodlight analysis (Spiller et al. 2013). The results
revealed that the difference between the brand compatibil-
ity conditions on life satisfaction occurred for participants
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
999
FIGURE 1
RESULTS FROM STUDY 2: MANIPULATED BRAND
COMPATIBILITY AND RELATIONSHIP POWER PREDICTING
LIFE SATISFACTION
7
6
Life satisfaction
5
4
3
Low-compatibility condition
2
High-compatibility condition
1
Low power High power
NOTE.—Brand compatibility condition did not affect life satisfaction for high-
power individuals. For low-power individuals, the low-brand-compatibility con-
dition was associated with significantly decreased life satisfaction.
whose relationship power levels were at or below power
levels of 4.82 (approximately half a SD below the mean).
Discussion3
In this study, we measured participants’ chronic sense of
power in their relationship using a standard measure, and
experimentally manipulated participants’ perception of
brand compatibility. In line with our predictions, we found
no effect of brand compatibility condition on life satisfac-
tion for high-power individuals. In contrast, as predicted,
we found that for low-power individuals, low brand com-
patibility led to reduced life satisfaction. Because we ma-
nipulated brand compatibility, these results highlight that
brand compatibility is not just a marker of existing conflict
in the relationship, but that brand compatibility, as a unique
construct, interacts with power to predict feelings of life
satisfaction.
STUDY 3
In study 2, we measured power and manipulated brand
compatibility. In study 3, we aimed to conduct a comple-
mentary study, increasing the generalizability of our find-
ings. First, we experimentally manipulated individuals’
3 To examine the reliability of these effects, we conducted a direct
replication of study 2. The findings replicated. The full results are
reported in the web appendix.
 1000
sense of power in the relationship in order to increase our
ability to draw causal conclusions about the role of power
in these effects. In line with the literature on social power,
we theorize that power is both a chronic, long-term vari-
able reflecting structural realities, and a situational vari-
able, in flux in many relationships and social settings
(Galinsky et al. 2003). As described in Jiang, Zhan, and
Rucker (2014), because of its prevalence in everyday life,
power is not only a long-term structural construct that can
be measured, but also a more variable mindset that can be
triggered or activated through common experimental tech-
niques. Research has shown that power can be evoked
through episodic recall, role playing, and even semantic
priming (Galinsky et al. 2003; Magee, Galinsky, and
Gruenfeld 2007). In other words, because it is a mindset,
all people can draw on experiences of feeling both high
and low power—even within the same relationship. One
can think of parent-child or professor-student relationships
as an example. Although the parent and professor chroni-
cally hold more power, one can probably recall a few times
when it felt as though the child and/or the student had
more power, which in turn can elicit responses associated
with feeling low in relationship power. Research has also
shown that chronic and manipulated power affect con-
sumer outcomes, including thought and behavior, in similar
ways (Rucker and Galinsky 2008, 2016; Rucker, Galinsky,
and Dubois 2012). These previous results suggest that ma-
nipulating perceptions of relationship power by asking par-
ticipants to recall an instance in their current relationship
when they had low power should produce similar effects as
chronic perceptions of power in the relationship.
Therefore, as in study 2, we predict that for individuals in
the high-power condition, there will be no effect of brand
compatibility on life satisfaction. On the other hand, we
predict that individuals in the low-power condition will
report lower life satisfaction as brand compatibility
decreases.
Method
Participants. One hundred eighty-one individuals
(51% men) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed
the study. As in the previous study, individuals had to be in
a relationship for at least six months and in the United
States in order to participate. The participants ranged in
age from 18 to 68 years with an average age of 33.93 years
(SD ¼ 11.76) and had been in their relationship for an aver-
age of 6.30 years (SD ¼ 7.78). Participants were paid in ex-
change for participation in the study.
Measures and Procedure. After providing consent,
participants were asked to list their partner’s favorite brand
in the same five categories as used in prior studies: coffee,
chocolate, car, beer, and soda. Participants were then asked
to list their own favorite brands in each of the same brand
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
categories. Again, we selected these categories because we
wanted a range of categories in terms of price and type,
and these are brand categories in which individuals often
have a preference.
Next, participants were randomized to either a high- or
low-power condition using a standard power manipulation,
which we modified slightly to reflect romantic relation-
ships (Galinsky et al. 2003). Specifically, participants in
the high- (low-) power condition were told the following:
Please recall a particular incident in which you had power
over your partner (your partner had power over you). By
power, we mean a situation in which you (your partner) con-
trolled the ability of your partner (you) to get something
they (you) wanted, or were in a position to evaluate your
partner (you). Please describe this situation in which you
had power—what happened, how you felt, etc.
Participants then completed the Satisfaction with Life
scale (Diener et al. 1985; a ¼ .81) as used in study 2. They
also completed a series of demographic items—gender,
age, relationship type, and relationship length.
Similar to study 1, we created a measure of perceived
brand compatibility from participants’ brand responses.
Two undergraduate research assistants blind to the hypoth-
esis of the study rated each of the brand pairs (i.e., how
compatible the brand that the participant listed as his/her
favorite compared with the brand that the participant listed
as his/her partner’s favorite) within a product category on
the same 1 (completely incompatible) to 5 (completely
compatible) scale used in study 1. Raters were highly reli-
able within each brand category (interrater reliability: beer
a ¼ .88; car a ¼ .87; chocolate a ¼ .90; coffee a¼.91;
soda a ¼ .91). Brand categories were then averaged to cre-
ate one mean brand compatibility score (Mbeer ¼ 2.62,
SD ¼ 1.59; Mcar ¼ 2.88, SD ¼ 1.45; Mchoc ¼ 2.85,
SD ¼ 1.58; Mcoffee ¼ 3.10, SD ¼ 1.68; Msoda ¼ 2.88,
SD ¼ 1.67).
Results
One participant indicated that he was single and was
therefore excluded from the subsequent analyses, leaving
180 participants.
Manipulation Check. Following prior research
(Galinsky et al. 2003; Mourali and Yang 2013; Smith and
Bargh 2008), an undergraduate research assistant blind to
both condition and hypotheses rated participants’ responses
for how much power the participant reported having over
his/her partner using a seven-point Likert scale.
Participants in the high-power condition described them-
selves having significantly more power over their partner
(M ¼ 5.27, SD ¼ 1.00) than did individuals in the low-
power condition (M ¼ 2.48, SD ¼ 1.24; t(178) ¼ 16.54,
p < .0001).
 BRICK ET AL.
Main Analyses. A linear regression, with life satisfac-
tion as the outcome variable and power condition and
mean-centered brand compatibility as the predictor varia-
bles, revealed a marginally significant main effect for
brand compatibility (b ¼ .20, t(176) ¼ 1.71; p < .09), such
that greater brand compatibility was associated with
greater life satisfaction. There was no main effect of
power condition on life satisfaction (b ¼ .06, t(176) ¼ 0.69;
p ¼ .49).
Results also revealed a marginally significant interaction
(b ¼ –.20, t(176) ¼ –1.75; p ¼ .08). Examining the interac-
tion (see figure 2), we found that the pattern of results rep-
licated the findings of study 2. Specifically, for individuals
in the high-power condition, there was no effect of brand
compatibility on life satisfaction, (t(176) ¼ –0.02; p, NS;
95% CI ¼ –.35 to .34). However, for individuals in the
low-power condition, lower brand compatibility was asso-
ciated with reduced life satisfaction (t(176) ¼ 2.62; p <
.01; 95% CI ¼ .10 to .71) (figure 2).
Discussion
In this study, we expanded upon the results from the pre-
vious study by manipulating, instead of measuring, power
in order to provide evidence of the causality of power in
moderating this association between compatibility and life
satisfaction. Our interaction effect was marginal in this
study. However, as predicted, we found that for individuals
temporarily led to feel high in power in their romantic rela-
tionship, perceived brand compatibility did not affect life
satisfaction. On the other hand, for individuals who are
temporarily led to feel low in power, we found that as
brand compatibility decreases, so too did life satisfaction.
These results thus conceptually replicated our findings
from the previous study and demonstrated that the effects
of brand compatibility on life satisfaction depend upon
power in the relationship.
STUDY 4
In our fourth study, we brought both members of exist-
ing romantic couples to the laboratory to examine our hy-
pothesis from a dyadic perspective (Simpson et al. 2014).
By studying both members of the couple, we were able to
measure power from both partners’ perspectives, meaning
that we could explore the possibility for actor-partner inter-
action effects (Kenny et al. 2006). Furthermore, we sought
to measure brand compatibility in a more objective man-
ner, by separately asking both members of the couple about
their brand preferences and then having raters code the
brands’ compatibility (as done in study 1). We sought to
replicate the effects from the experimental studies in this
dyadic sample—namely, that for high-power individuals,
brand compatibility would not affect life satisfaction, while
for low-power individuals, as brand compatibility
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
1001
FIGURE 2
RESULTS FROM STUDY 3: MANIPULATED RELATIONSHIP
POWER AND MEASURED BRAND COMPATIBILITY
PREDICTING LIFE SATISFACTION
7
6
Life satisfaction
5
4
3
Low-power condition
2 High-power condition
1
Low compatibility High compatibility
Brand compatibility
NOTE.—For individuals who were temporarily made to feel high in relationship
power, there is no effect of brand compatibility on life satisfaction. However,
for individuals who were temporarily made to feel low in power, as brand com-
patibility decreases, so does life satisfaction.
decreases, so too would life satisfaction. Furthermore, we
explored the possibility that the effect of brand compatibil-
ity on life satisfaction would be affected by an actor-
partner interaction effect (Kenny et al. 2006). We specu-
lated that the effect of brand compatibility would be stron-
gest for low-power participants with high-power partners.
Method
Participants. Because of the difficulty of recruiting
both members of romantic couples to the laboratory, we
recruited participants in two waves. The first wave (N ¼ 54
couples) completed this study as part of a multistudy event;
the second wave (N ¼ 50 couples) completed this study as
part of a different multistudy event. All participants re-
ceived financial compensation in exchange for their partic-
ipation. Thus, participants included both members of 104
romantic relationships, a total of 208 participants. They
ranged in age from 19 to 62 years with an average age of
27.33 years (SD ¼ 7.36) and had been in a relationship for
4.08 years on average (SD ¼ 5.07).
Measures and Procedure. After indicating consent,
partners were told that there were several parts to the study
and were instructed to complete the measures individually.
 1002 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

They completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener FIGURE 3

et al. 1985; a ¼ .83), as used in the previous studies, before
the other measures reported here. They also completed RESULTS FROM STUDY 4: BRAND COMPATIBILITY AND
the same relationship power measure used in study 2 RELATIONSHIP POWER IN COUPLES PREDICTING LIFE
SATISFACTION
(a ¼ .83).
Each partner was asked to list his/her favorite brand in
each of the same five categories used in the previous stud-
ies 1 and 3: coffee, chocolate, car, beer, and soda. As in
study 1, we created an index of brand compatibility from
each partner’s brand responses. Four undergraduate re-
search assistants rated each couples’ responses within each
product category (i.e., couple 1 partner 1’s favorite brand
of soda compared with couple 1 partner 2’s favorite brand
of soda) on the same 1 (not at all compatible) to 5
(completely compatible). As mentioned previously, using
this coding scheme allows us to differentiate between
responses such as “no preference” from “I don’t drink
soda.” The coders’ ratings were again averaged to create a
brand compatibility score for each brand category (Mbeer ¼
3.14, SD ¼ 1.40; Mcar ¼ 2.89, SD ¼ 1.20; Mchoc ¼ 2.71,
SD ¼ 1.27; Mcoffee ¼ 3.40, SD ¼ 1.52; Msoda ¼ 3.10,
SD ¼ 1.28). Coders were highly reliable within each brand
category (interrater reliability: beer a ¼ .94; car a ¼ .92;
NOTE.—For high-power partners (1 SD above the mean), there is no effect of
chocolate a ¼ .93; coffee a ¼ .95; soda a ¼ .93). Brand brand compatibility on life satisfaction. For low-power partners (1 SD below
categories were averaged to create one mean brand com- the mean), as brand compatibility decreases, so does life satisfaction.
patibility score for each couple, which served as the inde-
pendent variable.
results revealed a significant interaction between power
and brand compatibility on life satisfaction (B ¼ –.31,
Results t(180.80) ¼ –2.40, p < .02). We found that for high-power
Primary Analyses. We hypothesized that the effects of individuals (þ1SD), there was no effect of brand compati-
brand compatibility on life satisfaction would depend upon bility on life satisfaction (B ¼ –.06, t(155.02) ¼ –0.31; p ¼
power in the relationship. We first conducted analyses us- .76). On the other hand, for low-power individuals (–1
ing a multilevel modeling approach (Kenny et al. 2006), SD), the association of brand compatibility with life satis-
with individuals nested within couples to account for viola- faction was significant (B ¼ .48, t(178.29) ¼ 2.60; p ¼
tions of statistical independence. Life satisfaction served as .01). Specifically, for low-power individuals, reduced
our outcome variable, and power, brand compatibility, and brand compatibility was associated with significantly lower
the interaction between them served as our predictor varia- life satisfaction (figure 3).
bles. All of the predictor variables were grand mean-
centered (Aiken and West 1991; Kenny et al. 2006). In Actor-Partner Interdependence Model Analyses. In or-
these analyses, we initially included a factor for wave of der to explore the possibility that the effect of brand com-
data collection. The effect of wave was not significant and patibility on life satisfaction would be particularly strong
did not interact with our predictors; therefore, wave will for individuals who saw themselves as low in power and
not be discussed further. All analyses were conducted who had partners who saw themselves as high in power,
using the Mixed Models procedure in SPSS, with all we conducted additional analyses using the actor-partner
predictors as fixed effects, and power as a level-one (par- interdependence model (APIM; Kenny et al. 2006). These
ticipant-level) predictor and brand compatibility as a level- analyses separately estimate actor and partner effects
two (dyad-level) predictor. within a multilevel modeling framework, and allow us to
There was a significant main effect of power on life sat- test the effects of brand compatibility on life satisfaction
isfaction, such that greater relationship power was associ- within couples of varying power combinations (i.e., high-
ated with greater life satisfaction (B ¼ .58, t(187.26) ¼ high, high-low, low-high, and low-low). Actor and part-
7.93, p < .0001), and a nonsignificant positive association ner effects are estimated controlling for each other’s
between brand compatibility and life satisfaction (B ¼ .22, influence. As in our previous analyses, and following the
t(98.22) ¼ 1.55, p < .13). In line with our predictions, and norms in the field (Aiken and West 1991; Kenny et al.
replicating the findings in the two experimental studies, 2006), all predictor variables were grand mean-centered.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334

by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
 BRICK ET AL.
APIM analyses regressing life satisfaction on brand
compatibility, actor’s power, partner’s power, and all
interaction terms revealed significant main effects for
both actor power (B ¼ .67, SE ¼ .07, t(185.84) ¼ 9.11, p
< .001) and partner power (B ¼ .21, SE ¼ .07, t(185.84)
¼ 2.88, p ¼ .004), and a nonsignificant trend for
brand compatibility (B ¼ .19, SE ¼ .13, t(98.00) ¼ 1.44,
p ¼ .15).
A significant three-way interaction emerged (B ¼ –.55,
SE ¼ .21, t(98.00) ¼ –2.68, p ¼ .009) (figure 4). In line
with our theory, there was no effect of brand compatibility
on life satisfaction (i.e., the slopes were not significantly
different from zero) for high-power actors (1 SD above the
mean), regardless of whether their partner was high power
(1 SD above the mean) or low power (1 SD below the
mean) (slopes 1 and 2 in figure 4; slope 1: B ¼ .11,
t(98.00) ¼ 0.52, p ¼ .61; slope 2: B ¼ .19, t(165.12) ¼ .74,
p ¼ .46). Further, there was not a significant difference be-
tween the slopes for high-power actors (i.e., slopes 1 and 2
were not significantly different from each other: B ¼ –.04,
t(133.07) ¼ –0.22, p ¼ .83). There was a negative trend for
the effect of brand compatibility on life satisfaction for
low-power actors (1 SD below the mean) with low-power
partners (slope 4: B ¼ –.57, t(98.00) ¼ –1.80, p ¼ .08);
however, given the extremely small number of couples (N
¼ 4 couples) in this cell, it is hard to interpret this result.
Interestingly, and in line with our theorizing about the pos-
sible actor-partner interaction effect, there was a significant
effect of brand compatibility on life satisfaction for low-
power actors with high-power partners (slope 3: B ¼ 1.03,
t(165.12) ¼ 4.05, p < .0001). Furthermore, the slope for
low-power actors with high-power partners was signifi-
cantly different from the slope for low-power actors with
low-power partners (i.e., slope 3 vs. 4: B ¼ .92, t(118.45)
¼ –2.68, p < .0001).
Discussion
Study 4 examined in a dyadic laboratory study the asso-
ciation between brand compatibility, which we measured
objectively by asking both members of romantic couples
for their preferences, and life satisfaction in romantic cou-
ples. In line with our predictions, and replicating the find-
ings of the two experimental studies, we found that the
effects of brand compatibility on life satisfaction
depended upon power in the relationship. We found that
for high-power individuals, brand compatibility had no
effect on life satisfaction. In other words, people with
high relationship power reported similar levels of life sat-
isfaction whether or not the couple had similar brand pref-
erences among common consumption categories. In
contrast, for low-power individuals, as brand compatibil-
ity decreased, so too did life satisfaction. In general, for
these individuals, the compatibility of brand preferences
was meaningful, such that those with low brand
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
1003
FIGURE 4
ACTOR-PARTNER INTERDEPENDENCE MODEL (APIM)
RESULTS FROM STUDY 4
7
6
Life satisfaction
5
4
(1) High actor power,
High partner power
3 (2) High actor power,
Low partner power
(3) Low actor power,
2 High partner power
(4) Low actor power,
Low partner power
1
Low brand compability High brand compability
NOTE.—APIM analyses revealed that for low-power individuals (1 SD above
the mean) with high-power partners, as brand compatibility decreases, so too
does life satisfaction (slope 3).
compatibility reported lower life satisfaction. Thus, these
dyadic analyses replicated the findings of our prior exper-
imental studies.
In APIM analyses, it appeared that these effects of de-
creased brand compatibility on reduced life satisfaction
were specific to low-power individuals with high-power
partners. For low-power actors with high-power partners,
the lower-power actor’s life satisfaction was strongly de-
pendent on brand compatibility. On the other hand, for
high-power participants, regardless of partner reports of
power, life satisfaction was independent of brand compat-
ibility. Unexpectedly, when both partners reported that
they had low power, there was a trend for a negative asso-
ciation between brand compatibility and life satisfaction.
Although interesting, we hesitate to overinterpret these
patterns, as there were very few couples who were low-
low power. Speculatively, when each partner is low
power, it may suggest an overall level of dysfunction, as
neither partner feels able to control the outcomes in the
relationship. Such partnerships may be rare, and when
they do occur, may be unstable. Either way, this finding
highlights the lack of research on these low-low-power
pairs (Simpson et al. 2014). Overall, the findings from
study 4 contribute to the current research by replicating
the experimental findings of studies 2 and 3 and demon-
strating the interaction of brand compatibility and power
on life satisfaction in both members of real-world roman-
tic couples.
 1004
STUDY 5
We propose that brand compatibility and power may
lead to differences in perceptions of conflict in the relation-
ship. Merriam-Webster defines conflict as an “opposing
action of incompatibles” or a “mental struggle resulting
from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or
external or internal demands” (Merriam-Webster.com).
Previous research has shown that high-power partners
are less likely to notice, appreciate, or consider others’
preferences, including the preferences of their low-power
partners (Fiske 1993; Galinsky et al. 2006; Keltner et al.
2003). Furthermore, by definition high-power partners are
more likely to control outcomes in the relationships, sug-
gesting that they most likely do not perceive “an opposing
action of incompatibles.” Consequently, they may be unaf-
fected by differences in brand preferences within the rela-
tionship. For high-power partners, brand compatibility
should not be a source of conflict.
On the other hand, previous research has found that low-
power partners are not only less likely to express their
opinions to others (Berdahl and Martorana 2006), but also
more likely to pay attention to the preferences, attitudes,
and feelings of their partners (Fiske 1993; Keltner et al.
2003). When brand compatibility is low, low-power part-
ners may therefore be more likely to perceive a “struggle
resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives,
[and] wishes.” They are also more likely to “lose out” to
their higher-power partners, which may lead to viewing
these decisions as unfair. In order to test whether low-
power partners view decisions as unfair when brand com-
patibility is low, we conducted an online study in which we
manipulated perceptions of power (high vs. low) and brand
compatibility (high vs. low) and measured perceived fair-
ness as the outcome variable. In line with predictions, indi-
viduals in the low-power/low-brand-compatibility
condition reported significantly less (at the p < .05 level)
perceived fairness with how decisions would be made in
the relationship compared with the other three conditions
(see the web appendix for additional details regarding this
study). As perceived unfairness has been shown to be an
underlying driver of relationship conflict (Grote and Clark
2001), we propose that brand compatibility and power in-
teract to influence perceptions of conflict in the relation-
ship. Specifically, we predict that perceptions of conflict
will be greatest when brand compatibility and power are
both low.
We test this hypothesis—that low brand compatibility is
more likely to be a source of perceived conflict for low-
power partners—in the current study. In keeping with
much prior research on power, we utilized a scenario para-
digm. Research has shown that manipulating perceptions
of power can influence perceptions of other dynamics in
social contexts (e.g., high-power individuals have been
shown to project their attitudes and feelings on to others;
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Keltner et al. 2003; Overbeck and Droutman 2013). A sce-
nario method allows us to more cleanly manipulate both
perceptions of power and of brand compatibility. In addi-
tion, we included a measure of autonomy threat to rule out
an alternative process explanation. For parsimony, we pre-
sent the findings related to conflict here. (Findings related
to autonomy threat are provided in the web appendix.)
Method
Participants. Six hundred nine participants (40% men)
from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed the study in
exchange for financial compensation. Participants ranged
in age from 18 to 74 years with an average age of
35.43 years (SDage ¼ 11.46).
Measures and Procedure. After indicating consent,
participants were asked to read a scenario and imagine that
they were in it. They were told they would be asked ques-
tions about the scenario. Participants were randomized to
one of four conditions, in which we varied brand compati-
bility and relationship power, and were presented with a
scenario that corresponded to that condition. We manipu-
lated brand compatibility by telling participants they either
liked the same or opposing brands as their partner. We ma-
nipulated relationship power by including statements from
the modified power measure used in the previous studies
(Anderson et al. 2012), which we presented as if the partic-
ipant reported feeling that way about the described rela-
tionship. (See the web appendix for the conditions.)
While imagining themselves in the scenario, participants
were next asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or
disagreed with several statements. All participants rated
their agreement on a seven-point Likert scale (anchored
with Strongly Disagree and Strongly Agree). As our mea-
sure of perceived relationship conflict, participants an-
swered to what extent they agreed with the following two
items: “My partner and I probably argue a lot” and “My
partner and I probably have a lot of conflict” (a ¼ .95).
Participants completed other items, including autonomy
threat (see the web appendix), filler items, and demo-
graphic variables.
Results
Eight participants indicated they had taken the survey
multiple times and were excluded from the following
analyses. We hypothesized that participants in the low-
brand-compatibility/ low-power condition would report the
greatest levels of perceived conflict. In order to test this hy-
pothesis, we conducted an ANOVA with brand compatibil-
ity condition, power condition, and their interaction as the
predictor variables and conflict as the outcome variable.
Results revealed a main effect for brand compatibility con-
dition (F(1, 597) ¼ 30.52, p < .0001), such that the low-
brand-compatibility condition reported greater conflict,
 BRICK ET AL.
and a main effect for power (F(1, 597) ¼ 82.37, p <
.0001), such that the low-power condition reported greater
perceived conflict. Importantly, results also revealed a sig-
nificant interaction (F(1, 597) ¼ 3.87, p < .05). Planned
contrasts indicated that each of the groups was signifi-
cantly different from the others, with the low-power/low-
brand-compatibility condition reporting significantly
greater perceived conflict (M ¼ 4.10) than not only the
high-power conditions (vs. high-power/low-brand-compat-
ibility condition M ¼ 3.26, t(597) ¼ 4.96, p < .0001; vs.
high-power/high-brand-compatibility condition M ¼ 2.47,
t(597) ¼ 10.37, p < .0001), but also the low-power/high-
brand-compatibility condition (M ¼ 3.68, t(597) ¼ 2.52, p
¼ .01) (figure 5). (Note: Because all of the other studies in-
volve individuals currently in a relationship, while here we
asked even those outside of a relationship to imagine them-
selves in the scenario, we repeated these analyses control-
ling for relationship status, and the results remain the
same.)
Discussion
In a recent article, conflict was predicted by spouses’
differing financial preferences (Rick, Small, and Finkel
2011); extending that work here, we find evidence to sup-
port the notion that incompatibility in brand preferences
also predicts perceived conflict. These findings suggest
that the consistent pattern of evidence across studies dem-
onstrating that low brand compatibility decreases life satis-
faction for low-power partners may be related to
relationship conflict. In other words, perceived conflict
may be the mechanism through which brand compatibility
and power interact to influence life satisfaction.4
STUDY 6
In our sixth study, a dyadic study, we again examined
brand compatibility, power, and life satisfaction in both
members of romantic couples, and we further explore the
role of perceived conflict. In line with study 5’s findings,
we hypothesized that for low-power partners, low brand
compatibility would be associated with increased reports
of perceived conflict, given that these individuals are un-
able to control outcomes, and thus, brand choices likely
create some notable problems for their everyday consump-
tion experiences. Previous research has demonstrated that
perception of relationship conflict has been shown to pre-
dict reductions in general satisfaction (Gordon and Chen
4 We conducted an additional experimental study to further investi-
gate the role of conflict in current romantic relationships depending
upon brand preferences and relationship power. The results of this ad-
ditional study revealed that, unlike their higher-power counterparts,
lower-power partners reported greater conflict in their current relation-
ship over which brands to buy. Please see the web appendix for addi-
tional information regarding this study.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
1005
FIGURE 5
RESULTS FROM STUDY 5: PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP
CONFLICT AS A FUNCTION OF MANIPULATED BRAND
COMPATIBILITY AND MANIPULATED RELATIONSHIP POWER
5
Low brand compatibility
Perceived relationship conflict
4.5 * High brand compatibility
4
3.5
3
2.5
*p < .05
2
Low power High power
NOTE.—As predicted, the low-power/low-brand-compatibility condition
reported significantly greater perceptions of relationship conflict than the low-
power/high-brand-compatibility condition and both of the high-power
conditions.
2016; Gustavson et al. 2016). Therefore, we further hy-
pothesized that for low-power individuals, increased per-
ceived conflict would, in turn, drive reduced life
satisfaction.
Method
Participants. Study 6 used data from a multiwave
study examining romantic relationships conducted at a
large public university in Canada. Participants were
recruited through advertisements placed in the university
newspaper, flyers posted around campus, and presentations
in large undergraduate classes. Couples were eligible to
participate in the study if both partners indicated they were
in an exclusive heterosexual romantic relationship, had
been involved for at least six months, and were 18 years of
age or older. All participants received financial compensa-
tion in exchange for their participation; for completion of
the entire multipart longitudinal study, individuals received
$100. Participants were both members of romantic rela-
tionships (N ¼ 139 couples; Mage ¼ 20.80, SD ¼ 2.16).
Reflecting the ethnic diversity of the university campus,
participants were majority Caucasian (56.5%) and Asian
(33.5%), with 10% reporting mixed or other races.
Measures and Procedure. Partners took part in a multi-
wave study with three main components: an initial online
battery of questionnaires, an in-lab session with videotaped
conversations that occurred one to two weeks later, and
then three online follow-up questionnaires, each approxi-
mately one month apart, beginning one month after the lab
session. Most of the materials and procedures of this study
are irrelevant to the current hypothesis, as the study was
designed to explore goal dynamics over time and how
goals are related to relationship processes (Fitzsimons,
 1006
Finkel, and vanDellen 2015). All the relevant measures to
test our hypothesis about brand compatibility are described
here (see the web appendix for any related measures that
we did not use in our analyses).
During the first online follow-up questionnaire (taken
two months after the lab session), we included measures to
test the current hypotheses—that is, measures of brand
compatibility, relationship power, perceived conflict, and
life satisfaction. Because retention is challenging in longi-
tudinal studies, especially ones that require both members
of a dyad, we used shortened versions of the relationship
power, conflict, and life satisfaction scales. (Note: The
measures were completed in that order and the brand com-
patibility measure was collected after the other variables.)
Relationship power was measured by three items taken
from the same relationship power measure used in prior
studies. The items included: “I can get my partner to do
what I want,” “I think I have a great deal of power,” and
“My ideas and opinions are often ignored” (reverse-scored)
(a ¼ .66).
Perceived conflict was measured by five items that mea-
sured the degree of conflict partners perceived in their rela-
tionship over the course of the past month (Braiker and
Kelley 1979). The first two items—“How often did you
and your partner argue with each other this month?” and
“How often did you feel angry or resentful toward your
partner this month?”—were measured on a 1 (never) to 6
(constantly) scale. The other three items—“When you and
your partner argued, how serious were the problems or
arguments?” “To what extent did you wish you could
change things about your partner this month?” and “To
what extent did you communicate negative feelings toward
your partner (e.g., anger, dissatisfaction, frustration) this
month?”—were measured on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (ex-
tremely) scale. Items were standardized before being com-
bined into one measure of conflict (a ¼ .83).
Life satisfaction was measured with three items taken
from the same Diener et al. (1985) measure used in prior
studies, “In the last month, in most ways, my life has been
close to ideal,” “The conditions of my life were excellent
this month,” and “I am satisfied with my life right now,”
that were rated on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree) scale (Diener et al. 1985; a ¼ .86).
As in studies 1 and 4, each partner within a couple was
asked to list his/her favorite brand in the same brand cate-
gories: coffee, chocolate, car, beer, soda. (In addition, in
this study, partners were also asked about their favorite
brand of toothpaste. To be consistent, we report the analy-
ses using the same five brand categories as in the other
studies. Results remain the same when toothpaste is in-
cluded.) As in the previous studies, we created a measure
of brand compatibility from each pairing of partners’ brand
responses. Four undergraduate research assistants rated the
brands on the same 1 (not at all compatible) to 5
(completely compatible) scale as used in the previous
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
studies. The coders’ scores were again averaged to create a
brand compatibility rating for each brand category (Mbeer
¼ 2.63, SD ¼ 1.46; Mcar ¼ 2.48, SD ¼ 1.16; Mchoc ¼ 2.63,
SD ¼ 1.02; Mcoffee ¼ 3.56, SD ¼ 1.52; Msoda ¼ 2.59,
SD ¼ 1.26). Raters were highly reliable within each brand
category (interrater reliability: beer a ¼ .92; car a ¼ .89;
chocolate a ¼ .84; coffee a ¼ .95; soda a ¼ .92). As in the
previous studies, brand categories were then averaged to
create one mean brand compatibility score.
Results
In this study, we investigate the role that brand compati-
bility and power have on conflict, which we predict will in
turn affect life satisfaction. Specifically, we hypothesize
that for low-power partners, as brand compatibility
increases, conflict will decrease. Additionally, we hypothe-
size that conflict will in turn predict life satisfaction, sug-
gesting that for low-power partners, as brand compatibility
increases, conflict decreases and the reduction in conflict is
associated with greater life satisfaction.
We test our predictions in several steps. First, we exam-
ine whether power affects the link between brand compati-
bility and conflict. Because this is dyadic data, and thus
violates assumptions of independence required for standard
regression analyses, we again conducted a multilevel anal-
ysis (Kenny et al. 2006), with individuals nested within
couples. Conflict served as our outcome variable, and
power, brand compatibility, and the interaction between
them served as our predictor variables. As in the previous
study, all of the predictor variables were grand mean-
centered. All analyses were conducted using the Mixed
Models procedure in SPSS, with all predictors as fixed
effects, and power as a level-one (participant-level) predic-
tor and brand compatibility as a level-two (dyad-level)
predictor.
The results revealed a significant negative association
between partners’ reports of power and conflict (B ¼ –.12,
t(186.51) ¼ –2.70, p ¼ .008), indicating that as partners
felt less power in their relationship, they perceived more
conflict. Importantly, as predicted, results revealed a sig-
nificant interaction between power and brand compatibility
on perceived conflict (B ¼ .16, t(181.29) ¼ 2.14, p ¼ .03).
Examining the interaction, we find that for high-power
partners (þ1 SD), brand compatibility is nonsignificantly
positively related to conflict (B ¼ .15, t(217.90) ¼ 1.33,
p ¼ .19). On the other hand, for low-power partners (–1
SD), brand compatibility is negatively related to perceived
conflict (B ¼ –.17, t(218.90) ¼ –1.50, p ¼ .14) (figure 6).
Further examining the interaction, we find that low brand
compatibility is significantly associated with greater per-
ceived conflict for partners whose power scores are less
than 3.
Next, we examined whether conflict was related to life
satisfaction. A multilevel analysis (with individuals nested
 BRICK ET AL.
FIGURE 6
RESULTS FROM STUDY 6: BRAND COMPATIBILITY AND
RELATIONSHIP POWER IN COUPLES PREDICTING
PERCEIVED CONFLICT
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Z score conflict
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Low brand compatibility High brand compatibility
NOTE.—Results from study 6: For high-power (þ1 SD) partners, as brand com-
patibility increases, conflict increases. For low-power (–1 SD) partners, as
brand compatibility increases, conflict decreases.
within couples) revealed a significant, negative relation-
ship between conflict and life satisfaction (B ¼ –.41, SE ¼
.11, t(243.43) ¼ –3.73, p < .0001), indicating that as con-
flict in the relationship increased, life satisfaction de-
creased. In order to test our prediction that an indirect
pathway would exist between brand compatibility and
power, conflict, and life satisfaction, we conducted an anal-
ysis using the Monte Carlo Method for Assessing
Mediation (Selig and Preacher 2008). Previous research
has indicated that the Monte Carlo method is the better
method for assessing indirect effects over the Sobel test
and is about as good as nonparametric bootstrapping
(Hayes and Scharkow 2013). We used the coefficients and
the standard errors from the multilevel model parameters
for the interaction term (B ¼ .16, SE ¼ .07) and the media-
tor term (B ¼ –.40, SE ¼ .11). The 95% confidence inter-
val for the distribution of the indirect effect did not contain
zero [–.1396, –.007558], thus supporting the existence of
an indirect pathway from brand compatibility and power to
life satisfaction through conflict.
Following Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010), and because
this is multilevel data that violates statistical assumptions
of independence, we investigated the effect of the predictor
variables to the mediator, and the effect of the mediator to
the outcome variable. In line with predictions, the reported
indirect pathway does support our overall theorizing that
the repeated, day-to-day aspect of brand compatibility is
driving the increased conflict for low-power partners and
leading to the reduction in life satisfaction. However, we
also tested the direct pathway on life satisfaction. Although
brand compatibility (B ¼ .43, t(118.73) ¼ 3.10, p ¼ .002)
and relationship power (B ¼ .27, t(203.53) ¼ 3.27, p ¼
.001) had significant positive effects on life satisfaction,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
1007
the interaction between brand compatibility and power on
life satisfaction was not significant (B ¼ .08, t(200.30) ¼
0.61, p > .25). To investigate why the direct effect might
not have been as strong as in previous studies, we con-
ducted an internal analysis where we examined whether
there were differences in relationship type in this study
compared to the other studies. In all other studies, partici-
pants were older and the couples were likely to be living
with their partner (e.g., 100% were living together in study
1, 73% in study 2, 66% in study 3, 63% in study 4). This
particular study was run at a university using an undergrad-
uate sample that was much younger (median age
20.0 years) than the other samples. Interestingly, 26% of
Low power
High power
the couples were in long-distance dating relationships.
Given that our proposed theory suggests that for brand
compatibility to matter, there should be repeated interac-
tions at the day-to-day level, this may play a role. In an
analysis that includes only the couples who are not long
distance, the interaction of brand compatibility and power
on life satisfaction is marginally significant (B ¼ .29,
t(141.03) ¼ –1.89, p ¼ .06); and the effect of the interac-
tion of brand compatibility and power on conflict is signifi-
cant (B ¼ .29, t(126.99) ¼ 3.72, p < .0001). Of course, this
post-hoc speculation needs to be further explored in future
research, but it does provide additional insight to our
theory.
Discussion
In our final study, using both members of the couple, we
tested our predictions that brand compatibility and power
are related to conflict within the relationship. It is impor-
tant to note that conflict and brand compatibility were not
directly correlated (B ¼ –.01, t(122) ¼ –.17, p ¼ .87), sug-
gesting that brand compatibility is not just another measure
of conflict in the relationship. Importantly, and in line with
our hypotheses, we found that brand compatibility and
power significantly interacted to predict conflict. Results
from the mediation analysis further suggested the presence
of an indirect pathway from the interaction of compatibility
and power through conflict to life satisfaction. In other
words, high-power partners do not perceive an increase in
conflict as a result of low brand compatibility; however,
for low-power partners, when brand compatibility is low,
conflict is increased, and this increase in perceived conflict
is associated with reduced life satisfaction. In addition, in
this study, we found evidence in our internal analysis to
suggest that it is the repeated day-to-day interactions of
couples in terms of brand compatibility and power that is
influencing relationship conflict and life satisfaction.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This set of studies presents a new construct connecting
consumer experiences with close relationships—brand
 1008
compatibility—and explores its significance for psycholog-
ical well-being. Across several studies, examining both
individuals and couples, we find that brand compatibility
within a close relationship predicts life satisfaction, but,
importantly, only for individuals who experience low
power in their relationship. In other words, the effect of
brand compatibility on life satisfaction depends upon
power in the relationship. For high-power individuals,
brand compatibility is not related to life satisfaction, while
for low-power individuals, brand compatibility positively
predicts life satisfaction: when brand compatibility is
higher, life satisfaction is higher; however, when brand
compatibility is low, life satisfaction is reduced.
A strength of the studies is that they use different meth-
ods to manipulate and measure both brand compatibility
and power, allowing us to draw causal conclusions about
their roles in predicting life satisfaction, and to provide
more assurance of the generalizability of the effects. Brand
compatibility was measured as a perception (study 3), was
manipulated (studies 2 and 5), and was measured dyadi-
cally to obtain a clear and objective indicator of compati-
bility (studies 1, 4, and 6). Similarly, power was
manipulated (studies 3 and 5) and measured (studies 2, 4,
and 6).
Contributions and Implications
Our findings examine how consumer behavior within
the context of close relationships affects overall life satis-
faction. As close relationships are an integral part of life
that predict many meaningful outcomes including mortal-
ity rates, financial well-being, health, and happiness
(Berkman 1995; Cohen 2004; Keltner et al. 2003; Kiecolt-
Glaser, Gouin, and Hantsoo 2010; Kiecolt-Glaser et al.
2005; Liu and Reczek 2012; Marmot 2004; Waite and
Gallagher 2002), it is beneficial for consumer researchers
to explore links between close relationships and consumer
variables.
This research makes several contributions to the study of
relationships. It is the first to look at how compatibility—
of any kind—interacts with power in close relationships.
Surprisingly, no research on compatibility in close relation-
ships has examined how it may be more important for
some partners than others, instead highlighting the general
benefits of compatibility (Bramlett and Mosher 2002;
Decuyper, De Bolle, and De Fruyt 2012; Gaunt 2006;
Heaton and Pratt 1990; Lucas et al. 2004b; Murray et al.
2002) or questioning the value of compatibility for all part-
ners (Dyrenforth et al. 2010; Houts et al. 1996; Montoya
et al. 2008; Tidwell et al. 2013). In this work, we suggest
that compatibility is crucial for partners who are low in
power, but far less so for those who are high in power.
Using the context of brand preferences, we found that com-
patibility has a predictive influence for individuals who
chronically feel low in power and for those who were
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
temporarily led, as a result of an experimental manipula-
tion, to feel low in power. This work thus contributes to
prior work on compatibility in close relationships by
highlighting the importance of considering other relation-
ship variables, like power, when studying the role of
compatibility.
Furthermore, the findings suggest that even seemingly
trivial forms of compatibility—whether partners report lik-
ing the same soda and coffee brands—can affect important
psychological phenomena. Life satisfaction is a complex
evaluation, but most research studying it has looked at cer-
tainly more profound predictors, such as marriage quality,
religion, health, self-esteem, job satisfaction, and unem-
ployment (Adams, King, and King 1996; Diener and
Diener 2009; Diener et al. 2010; Heller, Watson, and Ilies
2004; Lim and Putnam 2010; Lucas et al. 2004a; Mroczek
and Spiro 2005). Here we show that for some people—
those low in power—even something as seemingly mun-
dane as brand compatibility within a close relationship
influences people’s satisfaction with their lives. Although
we studied these ideas only within the brand context, we
suggest that they may also be worth studying with other
low-level forms of day-to-day compatibility, such as activ-
ity, spending, and parenting preferences. If couples are in-
compatible on dimensions that matter in day-to-day life,
our findings here suggest that low-power partners will suf-
fer as a result.
In taking a dyadic perspective on consumers’ preference
for brands, the studies begin to answer calls for a more so-
cial and interpersonal perspective on consumer behavior
(Simpson et al. 2012), and for the study of power in con-
sumer behavior more specifically (Brick and Fitzsimons
2016; Rucker et al. 2012). Although research on social
power has long been a large and influential topic in psy-
chology, organizational behavior, sociology, and other
fields in social science (see Magee and Galinsky 2008 for a
review), power in the consumer context has historically re-
ceived less attention. As Rucker and colleagues noted,
“Despite the long-recognized value and experimental study
of power across the social sciences, the construct of power
has been largely absent from efforts to understand con-
sumer behavior. This is somewhat surprising given that dif-
ferent degrees of power exist and arise in consumers’
everyday activities” (Rucker et al. 2012). Indeed, recent re-
search supports the relevance of experiences of social and
interpersonal power for consumer behavior (Jiang et al.
2014; Kim and McGill 2011; Rucker and Galinsky 2008).
Our findings thus contribute to the literature on power, and
more specifically relationship power, within consumer
behavior.
This research also has implications in terms of brand
loyalty. Individuals’ brand preferences may shift as a func-
tion of their close relationships and close relationship sta-
tus. One could imagine being loyal to particular brands
when one is single, and shifting or changing those brand
 BRICK ET AL.
preferences once one enters into a relationship. In addition,
as individuals change their relationship status, moving
from single to engaged to married, brand preferences and
brand loyalties may change. It would be interesting to ex-
amine how an individual’s brand preferences shift over the
course of his or her lifetime as a function of relationship
status. Furthermore, what happens when an individual ends
a close, romantic relationship if he/she has shifted brand
preferences? Does the individual go back to using the
brands he/she preferred from before the relationship, or
continue using the brands that he/she used while in a
relationship?
On a practical note, the current findings have implica-
tions for matchmaking, including online dating services.
Online dating is now a major multibillion-dollar industry.
For example, IAC/InterActiveCorp., the company that
owns Match.com, reported over $1.2 billion in revenue last
year for its dating websites alone (JMP Securities Initiation
Report, http://ir.iac.com/results.cfm; see Supplemental
Financial Information and Metrics). Recent research has
highlighted the ways in which online dating differs from
conventional offline dating (Finkel et al. 2012), and taking
consumer preference information into account may be an-
other way. Very few, if any, of these online dating websites
ask about everyday consumer preferences and use this in-
formation in their matchmaking algorithms. However, our
research suggests that one aspect of consumer preferences,
namely brand preferences, can affect relationship conflict
and well-being. We are not suggesting that brand preferen-
ces are the only form of consumer behavior that match-
makers should take into account, but the present research
suggests that when designing future questions and surveys,
matchmakers, including online services, should consider
including items to assess consumer behavior at the day-to-
day level, such as brand preferences, to better meet their
customers’ needs. For those who will ultimately be high in
power, consumer preferences like brand compatibility may
be irrelevant, but for those who will ultimately be low in
power, it would be beneficial for them to consider.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations to the current work. One
important limitation is that we only ask about brand prefer-
ences and do not specifically examine brand use. A poten-
tial problem with this could be that couples trade off or
engage in multibrand use within the household, and thus
their preferences really do not matter for day-to-day life.
To explore this, we conducted a simple online study in
which we asked individuals who live with their partner to
count the total number of brands that are currently in their
household across various product categories. Specifically,
406 participants (45% men) were given the same definition
of a brand as used throughout the current research. They
then counted and listed each of the brands currently in or
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
1009
used by their household within the following product cate-
gories: soda, coffee, beer, chocolate, car, toothpaste, toilet
paper, laundry detergent, grocery store, orange juice,
ketchup, and paper towels. The mean number of brands
within each product category was 1.06 (SD ¼ 0.27). The
product categories with the highest mean were grocery
store (M ¼ 1.83, SD ¼ 0.71) and car (M ¼ 1.54,
SD ¼ 0.73), and for all categories except grocery store, the
modal response was 0 or 1. Overall, this survey suggests
that, on average, at least for the product categories studied,
couples tend to purchase at most one brand for the house-
hold. Because couples are generally choosing just one
brand for the household, brand preferences do matter. Over
time, incompatible brand preferences may indeed be a
source of conflict for couples, particularly if one partner is
continually getting his or her way at the expense of the
other partner.
Another limitation of the current work may be the ro-
bustness of the results. In a couple of studies, the p values
were relatively weak. Thus, readers may be concerned
about the strength of the evidence for the key interaction.
Readers can be reassured that all reporting was fully trans-
parent, as explained in the introduction. All measures and
conditions were reported (with exceptions noted), and all
attempts were made to follow best-practice guidelines for
transparency in research collection and reporting. Because
of the relatively weak p values, we also sought additional
evidence in the form of a direct replication (study 2B).
Despite these efforts, it is reasonable to question the
strength of the evidence provided here. We acknowledge
this as a potential limitation of the current work. That said,
we do believe that the consistent pattern of findings across
studies, using multiple methods, including measuring and
manipulating brand compatibility and power using various
coding schemes and analyses, supports our hypothesis.
Further, we hope that our novel findings encourage future
research on this important topic.
Finally, because it is difficult to recruit both partners of
a couple to come to the lab together, we used data in stud-
ies 4 and 6 from multistudy events examining romantic
relationships. Using data from multistudy events limits
control over the order of administration of focal measures.
In addition, it also increases the number of other measures
to which participants are exposed.
One direction for future research could be to further
study couples who are both low-low or high-high in rela-
tionship power. In our research, we focused on perceptions
of relationship power. Accordingly, and as discussed in
study 4, this means that within a couple there can be two
members who are high-high in power and two members
who are low-low in power. What does it mean for both
partners to be high in perceptions of relationship power?
On the one hand, it could mean that one partner is oblivi-
ous. On the other hand, if power is defined as the ability to
influence others (Anderson and Galinsky 2006; Emerson
 1010
1962; Keltner et al. 2003; Magee and Galinsky 2008), it
suggests that both partners believe that they have control in
the relationship. If both partners perceive control, or
power, it suggests the relationship is an equitable one, and
close relationships research has highlighted that the most
satisfying relationships are indeed those viewed as equita-
ble (Gray-Little and Burks 1983). Perhaps, then, couples
who are high-high in relationship power are happy because
they believe they have equal control in the relationship, re-
gardless of the actual breakdown and perhaps regardless of
the specific domain. Future research could also investigate
whether couples who are high-high in relationship power
pursue complementary goal strategies. In other words, do
they alternate control across domains that are of differing
importance or do they alternate within a domain? In terms
of low-low relationships, there were very few couples who
were low-low power, and we hesitate to overinterpret this
pattern. However, this finding does suggest another area
for future research. Overall, our results indicate that per-
ceived power in relationships is not always zero-sum,
which is also an interesting area for future research.
Future research could also further investigate the role of
relationship power in consumer behavior. Recent research
has demonstrated that power influences purchasing deci-
sions (Rucker et al. 2012; Rucker, Hu, and Galinsky 2014).
For example, Jiang et al. (2014) found that increased per-
ceptions of power result in greater switching behavior.
This research, like much of the previous research, has fo-
cused on the level of the individual, whereas the present re-
search focuses on partners within romantic relationships.
Thus, it would be interesting to examine the role of power
in relationships and switching behavior. Although the pre-
vious research has found that high-power individuals are
more likely to engage in switching behavior (Jiang et al.
2014), a close relationships perspective suggests that low-
power partners may be more likely to switch and adopt
their high-power partners’ preferences. Longitudinal re-
search could examine how brand preferences shift over the
course of a relationship.
A related area for future research could examine how
brand preferences change over the course of one’s lifetime
as a result of relationship status and power. Previous re-
search has indicated that high-power individuals tend to
have more stable self-concepts over time (Kraus, Chen,
and Keltner 2011), and so it might be that individuals who
tend to have power in relationships do not shift their brand
preferences. However, for those who generally yield power
to their partners, perhaps their brand preferences shift back
to the brands they preferred before they entered into the re-
lationship. Alternatively, maybe they do not change brand
preferences until they enter into a new relationship. Future
research could examine this topic and how it relates to
brand loyalty over a consumer’s lifetime.
The manner in which consumers make decisions with
other people can be different from the manner in which
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
consumers make decisions by themselves (Park 1982). The
current research supports this idea and suggests that the
brands people consume when they are with their romantic
partner may be different from ones that they select when
they are alone, especially for low-power partners. One
question that arises is whether evaluations of brands
change when a partner, especially a high-power partner, is
present. Would partners who are low power, and who gen-
erally prefer a different brand, change their evaluations to
be in line with their partner’s views when their partner is
present? In other words, would lower-power partners “go
along to get along”? Previous research suggests that they
would (Fiske 1993; Keltner et al. 2003; Simpson et al.
2014), and our research suggests that they may subse-
quently be less happy. Another question is how do brand
compatibility and relationship power interact to influence
consumers’ brand evaluations depending upon whether
only one or both partners like the brand? Future research
could tease apart differences in brand preferences, evalua-
tions, and selections when low-power individuals are with
versus without their partners, and whether the decision it-
self is shared or made by one member of the couple.
Conclusion
Individuals often use and consume brands in the pres-
ence of their close partners. Yet very little is known about
the role that brand preferences play in close relationships.
In the present research, we seek to provide a preliminary
examination of this topic by examining how brand compat-
ibility, or the extent to which individuals have similar
brand preferences as their partners, influences life satisfac-
tion. For low-power partners, it seems that brand compati-
bility can reliably predict how satisfied they feel with their
lives. For those who tend to yield power to their romantic
partners, the brand preferences of their partners take on a
rather surprising significance, suggesting the importance of
brand preferences in everyday life. If you tend to yield
power to your romantic partners, perhaps you should first
ensure that they share your love of Coke, or you may find
yourself drinking Pepsi yet again.
DATA COLLECTION INFORMATION
For each study involving both members of the couple,
sample sizes were based on subject availability as well as
the needs of unrelated research projects that were run in
conjunction with data collection. For studies using online
participants, sample sizes were determined a priori. No ad-
ditional data were collected after data analyses began with
the exception of the additional conditions for study 2 as
requested by a reviewer in the previous round of revisions.
The data from study 1 were collected from a local farmer’s
market in November 2015 by research assistants under the
supervision of the first author. Data for studies 2 and 3
 BRICK ET AL.
were collected from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in
January 2015 by the first author. Data from replication
study 2 were collected in October 2016. The couple data
from study 4 were collected during two waves of data col-
lection from April 2014 to November 2014 under the su-
pervision of a lab manager and research assistants. Data for
study 5 and the introductory study to study 5 were col-
lected from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in January 2016
and September 2016. Data from study 6 were collected by
research assistants under the supervision of the second au-
thor as part of a multiwave study examining romantic rela-
tionships. The data for studies 2, 3, and 5 were analyzed by
the first author. The data for studies 1, 4, and 6 were ana-
lyzed primarily by the first author with support from the
second author.
APPENDIX
RELATIONSHIP POWER MEASURE
Participants are asked to indicate to what extent they agree
with the following statements in regard to their relation-
ship. Items are rated on a seven-point Likert scale anchored
with “Strongly Disagree” and “Strongly Agree.” Items
marked with an * are reverse-scored.
1. I can get my partner to listen to what I say.
2. My wishes do not carry much weight.*
3. I can get my partner to do what I want.
4. Even if I voice them, my views have little sway.*
5. I think I have a great deal of power.
6. My ideas and opinions are often ignored.*
7. Even when I try, I am not able to get my way.*
8. If I want to, I get to make the decisions.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), “Consumer
Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing,
27–41.
Aaker, Jennifer, Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel (2004),
“When Good Brands Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer
Research 31 (1), 1–16.
Acitelli, Linda K, Elizabeth Douvan, and Joseph Veroff (1993),
“Perceptions of Conflict in the First Year of Marriage: How
Important Are Similarity and Understanding?” Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 10 (1), 5–19.
Adams, Gary A., Lynda A. King, and Daniel W. King (1996),
“Relationships of Job and Family Involvement, Family
Social Support, and Work–Family Conflict with Job and Life
Satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (4), 411.
Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), “The Effects of Brand Relationship
Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (1), 87–101.
Aiken, Leona S. and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple
Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
1011
Aknin, Lara B., Christopher P. Barrington-Leigh, Elizabeth W.
Dunn, John F. Helliwell, Justine Burns, Robert Biswas-
Diener, Imelda Kemeza, Paul Nyende, Claire E. Ashton-
James, and Michael I. Norton (2013), “Prosocial Spending
and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a
Psychological Universal,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 104 (4), 635.
Anderson, Cameron and Adam D. Galinsky (2006), “Power,
Optimism, and Risk-Taking,” European Journal of Social
Psychology, 36 (4), 511–36.
Anderson, Cameron, Oliver P. John, and Dacher Keltner (2012),
“The Personal Sense of Power,” Journal of Personality, 80
(2), 313–44.
Arrindell, W. A., L. Meeuwesen, and F. J. Huyse (1991), “The
Satisfaction with Life Scale (Swls): Psychometric Properties
in a Non-Psychiatric Medical Outpatients Sample,”
Personality and Individual Differences, 12 (2), 117–23.
Bagchi, Rajesh and Amar Cheema (2013), “The Effect of Red
Background Color on Willingness-to-Pay: The Moderating
Role of Selling Mechanism,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 39 (5), 947–60.
Belk, Russell (1988), Possessions and Self, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Online Library.
Berdahl, Jennifer L. and Paul Martorana (2006), “Effects of Power
on Emotion and Expression During a Controversial Group
Discussion,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (4),
497.
Berger, Jonah and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers
Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product
Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121–34.
Berkman, Lisa F. (1995), “The Role of Social Relations in Health
Promotion,” Psychosomatic Medicine, 57 (3), 245–54.
Berscheid, Ellen, Mark Snyder, and Allen M. Omoto (1989), “The
Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the Closeness
of Interpersonal Relationships,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57 (5), 792.
Blossfeld, Hans-Peter (2009), “Educational Assortative Marriage
in Comparative Perspective,” Annual Review of Sociology,
35, 513–30.
Blum, Jeffrey S. and Albert Mehrabian (1999), “Personality and
Temperament Correlates of Marital Satisfaction,” Journal of
Personality, 67 (1), 93–125.
Braiker, Harriet B. and Harold H. Kelley (1979), “Conflict in the
Development of Close Relationships,” in Social Exchange in
Developing Relationships, ed. Robert L. Burgess and Ted L.
Huston, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 135–68.
Bramlett, Matthew D. and William D. Mosher (2002),
“Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the
United States,” Vital Health Statistics, 23 (22), 1–87.
Brick, Danielle J. and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2016), “Oppositional
Brand Choice: Using Brands to Respond to Relationship
Frustration,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (2), 257–63.
Burroughs, James E. and Aric Rindfleisch (2002), “Materialism
and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 29 (3), 348–70.
Byrne, Donn Erwin (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Vol. 11,
Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Carroll, Barbara A., and Aaron C. Ahuvia (2006), “Some
Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love,” Marketing
Letters, 17 (2), 79–89.
Clee, Mona A. and Robert A. Wicklund (1980), “Consumer
Behavior and Psychological Reactance,” Journal of
Consumer Behavior, 6 (4), 389–405.
 1012
Cohen, Sheldon (2004), “Social Relationships and Health,”
American Psychologist, 59 (8), 676.
Cohn, Michael A., Barbara L. Fredrickson, Stephanie L. Brown,
Joseph A. Mikels, and Anne M. Conway (2009), “Happiness
Unpacked: Positive Emotions Increase Life Satisfaction by
Building Resilience,” Emotion, 9 (3), 361.
Corfman, Kim P. and Donald R. Lehmann (1987), “Models of
Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence:
An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase
Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (1), 1–13.
Cromwell, Ronald E. and David H. Olsen (1975), Power in
Families, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Decuyper, Mieke, Marleen De Bolle, and Filip De Fruyt (2012),
“Personality Similarity, Perceptual Accuracy, and
Relationship Satisfaction in Dating and Married Couples,”
Personal Relationships, 19 (1), 128–45.
Diener, Ed (2012), “New Findings and Future Directions for Subjective
Well-Being Research,” American Psychologist, 67 (8), 590.
Diener, Ed and Robert Biswas-Diener (2002), “Will Money
Increase Subjective Well-Being?” Social Indicators
Research, 57 (2), 119–69.
Diener, Ed and Marissa Diener (2009), “Cross-Cultural Correlates
of Life Satisfaction and Self-Esteem,” in Culture and Well-
Being, ed. Ed Diener, New York: Springer, 71–91.
Diener, Ed, Robert A. Emmons, Randy J. Larsen, and Sharon
Griffin (1985), “The Satisfaction with Life Scale,” Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49 (1), 71–5.
Diener, Ed, Weiting Ng, James Harter, and Raksha Arora (2010),
“Wealth and Happiness across the World: Material
Prosperity Predicts Life Evaluation, Whereas Psychosocial
Prosperity Predicts Positive Feeling,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 99 (1), 52.
Dyrenforth, Portia S., Deborah A. Kashy, M. Brent Donnellan,
and Richard E. Lucas (2010), “Predicting Relationship and
Life Satisfaction from Personality in Nationally
Representative Samples from Three Countries: The Relative
Importance of Actor, Partner, and Similarity Effects,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (4), 690.
Dzhogleva, Hristina and Cait Poynor Lamberton (2014), “Should
Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-
Control Decisions in Dyads,” Journal of Consumer Research,
41 (2), 361–80.
Emerson, Richard M (1962), “Power-Dependence Relations,”
American Sociological Review, 31–41.
Emmons, Robert A. (1986), “Personal Strivings: An Approach to
Personality and Subjective Well-Being,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (5), 1058.
Emmons, Robert A. and Laura A. King (1988), “Conflict among
Personal Strivings: Immediate and Long-Term Implications
for Psychological and Physical Well-Being,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1040.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are
What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on
Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (3), 339–48.
———. (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand
Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378–89.
Filiatrault, Pierre and J. R. Brent Ritchie (1980), “Joint Purchasing
Decisions: A Comparison of Influence Structure in Family
and Couple Decision-Making Units,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 7 (2), 131–40.
Finkel, Eli J., Paul W. Eastwick, Benjamin R. Karney, Harry T.
Reis, and Susan Sprecher (2012), “Online Dating a
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Critical Analysis from the Perspective of Psychological
Science,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13
(1), 3–66.
Fiske, Susan T. (1993), “Controlling Other People: The Impact of
Power on Stereotyping,” American Psychologist, 48 (6), 621.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. (2000), “Consumer Response to Stockouts,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (2), 249–66.
Fitzsimons, Grainne M., Eli J. Finkel, and Michelle R. vanDellen
(2015), “Transactive Goal Dynamics,” Psychological
Review, 122 (4), 648.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands:
Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343–53.
French, John R. P. and Bertram Raven (1959), “The Bases of
Social Power,” in Classics of Organization Theory, ed. Jay
M. Shafritz and Philip H. Whitbeck, Oak Park, IL: Moore
Publishing, 311–20.
Fredrickson, Barbara L. and Thomas Joiner (2002), “Positive
Emotions Trigger Upward Spirals toward Emotional Well-
Being,” Psychological Science, 13 (2), 172–5.
Galinsky, Adam D., Deborah H. Gruenfeld, and Joe C. Magee
(2003), “From Power to Action,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85 (3), 453.
Galinsky, Adam D., Joe C. Magee, M. Ena Inesi, and Deborah H.
Gruenfeld (2006), “Power and Perspectives Not Taken,”
Psychological Science, 17 (12), 1068–74.
Gaunt, Ruth (2006), “Couple Similarity and Marital Satisfaction:
Are Similar Spouses Happier?” Journal of Personality, 74
(5), 1401–20.
Glicksohn, Joseph and Hilla Golan (2001), “Personality,
Cognitive Style, and Assortative Mating,” Personality and
Individual Differences, 30 (7), 1199–1209.
Gonzaga, Gian C., Belinda Campos, and Thomas Bradbury
(2007), “Similarity, Convergence, and Relationship
Satisfaction in Dating and Married Couples,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (1), 34.
Gordon, Amie M., and Serena Chen (2016), “Do You Get Where
I’m Coming From? Perceived Understanding Buffers against
the Negative Impact of Conflict on Relationship
Satisfaction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
110 (2), 239.
Gray-Little, Bernadette and Nancy Burks (1983), “Power and
Satisfaction in Marriage: A Review and Critique,”
Psychological Bulletin, 93 (3), 513.
Grote, Nancy K. and Margaret S. Clark (2001), “Perceiving
Unfairness in the Family: Cause or Consequence of Marital
Distress?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80
(2), 281–93.
Gustavson, Kristin, Espen Røysamb, Ingrid Borren, Fartein Ask
Torvik, and Evalill Karevold (2016), “Life Satisfaction in
Close Relationships: Findings from a Longitudinal
Study,” Journal of Happiness Studies 17 (3), 1293–1311.
Hayes, Andrew F. and Michael Scharkow (2013), “The Relative
Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in
Statistical Mediation Analysis: Does Method Really Matter?”
Psychological Science 24 (10), 1918–27.
Heaton, Tim B. and Edith L. Pratt (1990), “The Effects of
Religious Homogamy on Marital Satisfaction and Stability,”
Journal of Family Issues, 11 (2), 191–207.
Heller, Daniel, David Watson, and Remus Ilies (2004), “The
Role of Person versus Situation in Life Satisfaction: A
Critical Examination,” Psychological Bulletin, 130 (4),
574.
 BRICK ET AL.
Hoeffler, Steve and Kevin Lane Keller (2003), “The Marketing
Advantages of Strong Brands,” Journal of Brand
Management 10 (6), 421–45.
Holt, Douglas B. (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A
Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70–90.
Houts, Renate M., Elliot Robins, and Ted L. Huston (1996),
“Compatibility and the Development of Premarital
Relationships,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58 (1),
7–20.
Jiang, Yuwei, Lingjing Zhan, and Derek D. Rucker (2014),
“Power and Action Orientation: Power as a Catalyst for
Consumer Switching Behavior,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 41 (1), 183–96.
Kelley, Harold H. (1979), Personal Relationships: Their
Structures and Processes, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993) “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
Managing Customer-based Brand Equity,” Journal of
Marketing, 57 (1), 1–22.
Keltner, Dacher, Deborah H. Gruenfeld, and Cameron Anderson
(2003), “Power, Approach, and Inhibition,” Psychological
Review, 110 (2), 265.
Kenny, David A., Deborah A. Kashy, and William L. Cook
(2006), Dyadic Data Analysis, New York: Guilford.
Kiecolt-Glaser, Janice K., Jean-Philippe Gouin, and Liisa Hantsoo
(2010), “Close Relationships, Inflammation, and Health,”
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35 (1), 33–8.
Kiecolt-Glaser, Janice K., Timothy J. Loving, Jeffrey R. Stowell,
William B. Malarkey, Stanley Lemeshow, Stephanie L.
Dickinson, and Ronald Glaser (2005), “Hostile Marital
Interactions, Proinflammatory Cytokine Production, and
Wound Healing,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 62 (12),
1377–84.
Kim, Sara and Ann L. McGill (2011), “Gaming with Mr. Slot or
Gaming the Slot Machine? Power, Anthropomorphism, and
Risk Perception,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (1),
94–107.
Kirchler, Erich (1993), “Spouses’ Joint Purchase Decisions:
Determinants of Influence Tactics for Muddling through the
Process,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 14 (2), 405–38.
Kraus, Michael W., Serena Chen, and Dacher Keltner (2011),
“The Power to Be Me: Power Elevates Self-Concept
Consistency and Authenticity,” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 47 (5), 974–80.
Levinger, George and James Breedlove (1966), “Interpersonal
Attraction and Agreement: A Study of Marriage
Partners,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3
(4), 367.
Levinger, George and Marylyn Rands (1985), “Compatibility in
Marriage and Other Close Relationships,” in Compatible
and Incompatible Relationships, New York: Springer,
309–31.
Lim, Chaeyoon and Robert D. Putnam (2010), “Religion, Social
Networks, and Life Satisfaction,” American Sociological
Review, 75 (6), 914–33.
Little, Anthony C. and David I. Perrett (2002), “Putting Beauty
Back in the Eye of the Beholder,” The Psychologist 15,
28–32.
Liu, Hui and Corinne Reczek (2012), “Cohabitation and US Adult
Mortality: An Examination by Gender and Race,” Journal of
Marriage and Family, 74 (4), 794–811.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January 2018
1013
Lowe, Michael L. and Kelly L. Haws (2014), “(Im) Moral
Support: The Social Outcomes of Parallel Self-Control
Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 489–505.
Lucas, Richard E., Andrew E. Clark, Yannis Georgellis, and Ed
Diener (2004a), “Unemployment Alters the Set Point for Life
Satisfaction,” Psychological Science, 15 (1), 8–13.
Lucas, Todd W., Craig A. Wendorf, E. Olcay Imamoglu, Jiliang
Shen, Michele R. Parkhill, Carol C. Weisfeld, and Glenn E.
Weisfeld (2004b), “Marital Satisfaction in Four Cultures as a
Function of Homogamy, Male Dominance, and Female
Attractiveness,” Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6 (2–3),
97–130.
Luhmann, Maike, Wilhelm Hofmann, Michael Eid, and Richard
E. Lucas (2012), “Subjective Well-Being and Adaptation to
Life Events: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102 (3), 592.
Luo, Shanhong and Eva C Klohnen (2005), “Assortative Mating
and Marital Quality in Newlyweds: A Couple-Centered
Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88 (2), 304.
Luo, Xueming (2005), “How Does Shopping with Others
Influence Impulsive Purchasing?” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15 (4), 288–94.
Magee, Joe C. and Adam D. Galinsky (2008), “8 Social
Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and
Status,” Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 351–98.
Magee, Joe C., Adam D. Galinsky, and Deborah H. Gruenfeld
(2007), “Power, Propensity to Negotiate, and Moving First in
Competitive Interactions,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 33 (2), 200–12.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1988), “Self Concept and Product Choice:
An Integrated Perspective,” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 9 (1), 1–28.
Mare, Robert D. (1991), “Five Decades of Educational Assortative
Mating,” American Sociological Review, 15–32.
Marmot, Michael G. (2004), The Status Syndrome: How Social
Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity, London:
Macmillan.
Martin, Kelly D. and Ronald Paul Hill (2012), “Life Satisfaction,
Self-Determination, and Consumption Adequacy at the
Bottom of the Pyramid,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38
(6), 1155–68.
Merriam-Webster.com, “Conflict,” http://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/conflict.
Montoya, R. Matthew, Robert S. Horton, and Jeffrey Kirchner
(2008), “Is Actual Similarity Necessary for Attraction? A
Meta-Analysis of Actual and Perceived Similarity,” Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 25 (6), 889–922.
Mourali, Mehdi and Zhiyong Yang (2013), “The Dual Role of
Power in Resisting Social Influence,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40 (3), 539–54.
Mroczek, Daniel K. and Avron Spiro III (2005), “Change in Life
Satisfaction During Adulthood: Findings from the Veterans
Affairs Normative Aging Study,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88 (1), 189.
Muniz, Albert M. Jr. and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand
Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4),
412–32.
Murray, Sandra L., John G. Holmes, Gina Bellavia, Dale W.
Griffin, and Dan Dolderman (2002), “Kindred Spirits? The
Benefits of Egocentrism in Close Relationships,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (4), 563.
 1014
Ng, Sharon and Michael J. Houston (2006), “Exemplars or
Beliefs? The Impact of Self-View on the Nature and Relative
Influence of Brand Associations,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 32 (4), 519–29.
Overbeck, Jennifer R. and Vitaliya Droutman (2013), “One for All
Social Power Increases Self-Anchoring of Traits, Attitudes,
and Emotions,” Psychological Science, 24 (8), 1466–76.
Park, C. Whan (1982), “Joint Decisions in Home Purchasing: A
Muddling-through Process,” Journal of Consumer Research,
9 (2), 151–62.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B.
Eisingerich, and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment
and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical
Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,”
Journal of Marketing, 74 (6), 1–17.
Park, Ji Kyung and Deborah Roedder John (2010), “Got to Get
You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub Off on
Consumers?,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4),
655–69.
Pavot, William and Ed Diener (1993), “Review of the Satisfaction
with Life Scale,” Psychological Assessment, 5 (2), 164.
Raghunathan, Rajagopal and Kim Corfman (2006), “Is Happiness
Shared Doubled and Sadness Shared Halved? Social
Influence on Enjoyment of Hedonic Experiences,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 43 (3), 386–94.
Rick, Scott I., Deborah A. Small, and Eli J. Finkel (2011), “Fatal
(Fiscal) Attraction: Spendthrifts and Tightwads in
Marriage,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (2), 228–37.
Robins, Richard W., Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie E. Moffitt
(2000), “Two Personalities, One Relationship: Both Partners’
Personality Traits Shape the Quality of Their
Relationship,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79
(2), 251.
Rucker, Derek D., David Dubois, and Adam D. Galinsky (2011),
“Generous Paupers and Stingy Princes: Power Drives
Consumer Spending on Self Versus Others,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1015–29.
Rucker, Derek D. and Adam D. Galinsky (2008), “Desire to
Acquire: Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 257–67.
———. (2016), “Growing beyond Growth: Why Multiple Mindsets
Matter for Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 26 (1), 161–4.
Rucker, Derek D., Adam D. Galinsky, and David Dubois (2012),
“Power and Consumer Behavior: How Power Shapes Who
and What Consumers Value,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22 (3), 352–68.
Rucker, Derek D., Miao Hu, and Adam D. Galinsky (2014), “The
Experience versus the Expectations of Power: A Recipe for
Altering the Effects of Power on Behavior,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 41 (2), 381–96.
Rusbult, Caryl E., Madoka Kumashiro, Kaska E. Kubacka, and Eli
J. Finkel (2009), “‘The Part of Me That You Bring Out’:
Ideal Similarity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (1), 61.
Schwarz, Norbert, Herbert Bless, Fritz Strack, Gisela Klumpp,
Helga Rittenauer-Schatka, and Annette Simons (1991), “Ease
of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the Availability
Heuristic,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61 (2), 195.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/44/5/991/3896334
by Duke Medical Center Library user
on 16 January View
2018
publication stats
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Selig, James P. and Kevin J. Preacher (2008), “Monte Carlo
Method for Assessing Mediation: An Interactive Tool for
Creating Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects [Computer
Software].”
Shiota, Michelle N. and Robert W. Levenson (2007), “Birds of a
Feather Don’t Always Fly Farthest: Similarity in Big Five
Personality Predicts More Negative Marital Satisfaction
Trajectories in Long-Term Marriages,” Psychology and
Aging, 22 (4), 666.
Simpson, Jeffry A., Allison K. Farrell, M. Minda Ori~na, and
Alexander J. Rothman (2014), “Power and Social Influence
in Relationships,” in APA Handbook of Personality and
Social Psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal Relations, ed.
Jeffry A. Simpson and John F. Dovidio, Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 393–420.
Simpson, Jeffry A., Vladas Griskevicius, and Alexander J.
Rothman (2012), “Consumer Decisions in Relationships,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 304–14.
Smith, Pamela K. and John A. Bargh (2008) “Nonconscious
Effects of Power on Basic Approach and Avoidance
Tendencies,” Social Cognition, 26 (1), 1.
Smith, Pamela K., Nils B. Jostmann, Adam D. Galinsky, and
Wilco W. van Dijk (2008), “Lacking Power Impairs
Executive Functions,” Psychological Science, 19 (5), 441–7.
Spiller, Stephen A., Gavan J. Fitzsimons, John G. Lynch Jr., and
Gary H. McClelland (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and
the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in
Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50
(2), 277–88.
Steffel, Mary and Robyn A. Le Boeuf (2014), “Overindividuation
in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads
Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1167–80.
Thibaut, John W. and Harold H. Kelley (1959), The Social
Psychology of Groups, New York: Wiley.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park
(2005), “The Ties that Bind: Measuring the Strength of
Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77–91.
Tidwell, Natasha D., Paul W. Eastwick, and Eli J. Finkel (2013),
“Perceived, Not Actual, Similarity Predicts Initial
Attraction in a Live Romantic Context: Evidence from the
Speed-Dating Paradigm,” Personal Relationships, 20 (2),
199–215.
Waite, Linda and Maggie Gallagher (2002), The Case for
Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and
Better Off Financially, New York: Broadway Books.
Watson, David, Eva C. Klohnen, Alex Casillas, Ericka Nus
Simms, Jeffrey Haig, and Diane S. Berry (2004), “Match
Makers and Deal Breakers: Analyses of Assortative Mating
in Newlywed Couples,” Journal of Personality, 72 (5),
1029–68.
Weisfeld, Glenn E., R. J. H. Russell, C. C. Weisfeld, and
Pamela A. Wells (1992), “Correlates of Satisfaction in
British Marriages,” Ethology and Sociobiology, 13 (2),
125–45.
Zhao, Xinshu, John G. Lynch Jr., and Qimei Chen (2010),
“Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about
Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2),
197–206.