Relationship as Product: Transacting in the Age of Loneliness

Shmuel I. Becher, Sarah Dadush
{"title":"Relationship as Product: Transacting in the Age of Loneliness","authors":"Shmuel I. Becher, Sarah Dadush","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3590786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Humans have different types of relationships. Behavioral economists and social psychologists distinguish between two main types. The first type is the “exchange relationship,” based on mutual economic benefit and efficiency principles. The second is the “communal relationship,” based on caring, kindness, support, and affection. \n \nThe law has been slow to incorporate this distinction. This is particularly true in the consumer marketplace, where businesses increasingly employ communal tactics to achieve exchange outcomes. Today’s firms are in the business of selling not only products or services, but also “communal” or “social” relationships. We dub this phenomenon “relationship as product.” \n \nOur conjecture is that the practice of selling relationship as product can generate various negative outcomes. By encouraging consumers to behave emotionally, relationship as product lowers consumers’ defenses. It encourages consumers to overlook their self-interest and invest more money, attention, and time in buying products and services and interacting with firms. At a societal level, relationship as product can damage trust and decrease well-being. It can also contribute to unhealthy perceptions and practices regarding human-to-human relationships. Furthermore, by selling relationship as product, firms may be undermining the solidarity ties that bind communities. \n \nThis Article marks a first attempt to explore the problematic aspects of relationship as product from a legal and policy perspective. Part I illustrates how firms make relationship a product through the use of “love promises” and illusions of intimacy and affection. Part II explores the forces that may account for the rise of relationship as product, particularly the deepening loneliness epidemic, which facilitates the exploitation of consumers’ trust and cognitive biases. Part III explains how relationship as product can be viewed as a defective product that harms individual consumers and society at large. Part IV recommends avenues for expanding consumer law and policy to address these challenges.","PeriodicalId":202820,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Communication eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Communication eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3590786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Humans have different types of relationships. Behavioral economists and social psychologists distinguish between two main types. The first type is the “exchange relationship,” based on mutual economic benefit and efficiency principles. The second is the “communal relationship,” based on caring, kindness, support, and affection. The law has been slow to incorporate this distinction. This is particularly true in the consumer marketplace, where businesses increasingly employ communal tactics to achieve exchange outcomes. Today’s firms are in the business of selling not only products or services, but also “communal” or “social” relationships. We dub this phenomenon “relationship as product.” Our conjecture is that the practice of selling relationship as product can generate various negative outcomes. By encouraging consumers to behave emotionally, relationship as product lowers consumers’ defenses. It encourages consumers to overlook their self-interest and invest more money, attention, and time in buying products and services and interacting with firms. At a societal level, relationship as product can damage trust and decrease well-being. It can also contribute to unhealthy perceptions and practices regarding human-to-human relationships. Furthermore, by selling relationship as product, firms may be undermining the solidarity ties that bind communities. This Article marks a first attempt to explore the problematic aspects of relationship as product from a legal and policy perspective. Part I illustrates how firms make relationship a product through the use of “love promises” and illusions of intimacy and affection. Part II explores the forces that may account for the rise of relationship as product, particularly the deepening loneliness epidemic, which facilitates the exploitation of consumers’ trust and cognitive biases. Part III explains how relationship as product can be viewed as a defective product that harms individual consumers and society at large. Part IV recommends avenues for expanding consumer law and policy to address these challenges.
关系即产品:孤独时代的交易
人类有不同类型的关系。行为经济学家和社会心理学家将其分为两种主要类型。第一种是基于互利和效率原则的“交换关系”。第二种是基于关心、善良、支持和感情的“公共关系”。法律在纳入这一区别方面进展缓慢。在消费者市场尤其如此,企业越来越多地采用公共策略来实现交换结果。今天的公司不仅销售产品或服务,而且还销售“公共”或“社会”关系。我们称这种现象为“关系即产品”。我们的猜想是,将关系作为产品销售的做法会产生各种负面结果。通过鼓励消费者的情感行为,作为产品的关系降低了消费者的防御。它鼓励消费者忽视自身利益,将更多的金钱、注意力和时间投入到购买产品和服务以及与企业互动上。在社会层面上,作为产品的关系会损害信任,降低幸福感。它还可能导致关于人与人之间关系的不健康观念和做法。此外,通过将关系作为产品出售,公司可能正在破坏维系社区的团结纽带。本文首次尝试从法律和政策的角度探讨作为产品的关系的问题。第一部分说明了公司如何通过使用“爱的承诺”和亲密和感情的幻觉使关系成为一种产品。第二部分探讨了可能导致关系作为产品崛起的力量,特别是日益加深的孤独流行病,这有助于利用消费者的信任和认知偏见。第三部分解释了作为产品的关系如何被视为损害个人消费者和整个社会的有缺陷的产品。第四部分建议了扩大消费者法律和政策以应对这些挑战的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信