IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp1003.html

Accuracy of Food Preference Predictions in Couples

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Scheibehenne
  • Jutta Mata
  • David Richter

Abstract

The goal of this study was to identify and empirically test variables that indicate how well partners in relationships know each other’s food preferences. Participants (n = 2,854) lived in the same household and were part of a large, nationally representative panel study in Germany. Each partner independently predicted the other’s preferences for several common food items. Results show that predictive accuracy was higher for likes and for extreme and stereotypical preferences as compared to dislikes and for moderate and idiosyncratic preferences. Accuracy was also higher for couples with a high similarity in preferences and with longer relationship duration but was independent of participants’ age after controlling for relationship duration. The data also show that relationship duration was accompanied by higher similarity in couples’ food preferences. There was a small positive correlation between partner knowledge and both partner similarity and satisfaction with family life, but no correlation between partner knowledge and general life satisfaction. The results reconcile both valence and base-rate accounts of preference prediction accuracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Scheibehenne & Jutta Mata & David Richter, 2018. "Accuracy of Food Preference Predictions in Couples," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1003, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp1003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.611887.de/diw_sp1003.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. West, Patricia M, 1996. "Predicting Preferences: An Examination of Agent Learning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(1), pages 68-80, June.
    2. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Ilona De Hooge & Pegah Amani & Tino Bech-Larsen & Marije Oostindjer, 2015. "Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Davy Lerouge & Luk Warlop, 2006. "Why It Is So Hard to Predict Our Partner's Product Preferences: The Effect of Target Familiarity on Prediction Accuracy," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 393-402, November.
    4. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    5. Waldfogel, Joel, 1993. "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1328-1336, December.
    6. Ahluwalia, Rohini, 2002. "How Prevalent Is the Negativity Effect in Consumer Environments?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(2), pages 270-279, September.
    7. David Richter & Jürgen Schupp, 2015. "The SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP IS)," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 135(3), pages 389-400.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cheng, Andong & Meloy, Margaret G. & Polman, Evan, 2021. "Picking Gifts for Picky People," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 191-206.
    2. Schiffman, Leon G. & Cohn, Deborah Y., 2009. "Are they playing by the same rules? A consumer gifting classification of marital dyads," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 1054-1062, November.
    3. Heijnk, Vicky & Hess, Sebastian, 2025. "The effect of food prices on fruit and vegetable food waste in private households," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    4. Andrew Gershoff & Ashesh Mukherjee & Anirban Mukhopadhyay, 2006. "“I love it” or “I hate it”? The positivity effect in stated preferences for agent evaluation," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 103-117, April.
    5. Timea Marton & Jinglong Wang & Amaury Vaysse & Wei Yu & Pierre-Henri Commere & Quentin Holleville & Tristan Espie-Caullet & Richard Frock & Ludovic Deriano, 2025. "Polymerase theta repairs persistent G1-induced DNA breaks in S-phase during class switch recombination," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    7. JANSSENS, Jochen & DE CORTE, Annelies & SÖRENSEN, Kenneth, 2016. "Water distribution network design optimisation with respect to reliability," Working Papers 2016007, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    8. Teruaki Kido & Yuko Yotsumoto & Masamichi J. Hayashi, 2025. "Hierarchical representations of relative numerical magnitudes in the human frontoparietal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Raymond Hernandez & Elizabeth A. Pyatak & Cheryl L. P. Vigen & Haomiao Jin & Stefan Schneider & Donna Spruijt-Metz & Shawn C. Roll, 2021. "Understanding Worker Well-Being Relative to High-Workload and Recovery Activities across a Whole Day: Pilot Testing an Ecological Momentary Assessment Technique," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Christopher Hassall & Michael Nisbet & Evan Norcliffe & He Wang, 2024. "The Potential Health Benefits of Urban Tree Planting Suggested through Immersive Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, February.
    11. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Cheng, Shujun & Cheng, Liang & Ren, Yanjun & Zhao, Minjuan, 2026. "Do consumer cognition and dependence on food date labels contribute to reducing food waste? Evidence from urban China," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 27, pages 1-11.
    13. Elisabeth Beckmann & Lukas Olbrich & Joseph Sakshaug, 2024. "Multivariate assessment of interviewer-related errors in a cross-national economic survey (Lukas Olbrich, Elisabeth Beckmann, Joseph W. Sakshaug)," Working Papers 253, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    14. Joshua Cova, 2022. "Reconsidering the drivers of country-specific recommendations: The Commission's ideological preferences on wage policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(4), pages 639-661, December.
    15. F J Heather & D Z Childs & A M Darnaude & J L Blanchard, 2018. "Using an integral projection model to assess the effect of temperature on the growth of gilthead seabream Sparus aurata," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, May.
    16. Li, Hui & Xu, Yunjie & Huang, Lihua, 2021. "When less is more? The contingent effect of product supply limitation in the release of new electronic products," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Valentina Krenz & Arjen Alink & Tobias Sommer & Benno Roozendaal & Lars Schwabe, 2023. "Time-dependent memory transformation in hippocampus and neocortex is semantic in nature," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    18. Morán-Ordóñez, Alejandra & Ameztegui, Aitor & De Cáceres, Miquel & de-Miguel, Sergio & Lefèvre, François & Brotons, Lluís & Coll, Lluís, 2020. "Future trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests under global change scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    19. Chris Hydock & Neeru Paharia & T. J. Weber, 2019. "The Consumer Response to Corporate Political Advocacy: a Review and Future Directions," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(3), pages 76-83, December.
    20. Christiane Bradler & Susanne Neckermann, 2019. "The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1189-1221, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp1003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sodiwde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.