Romantic Partner Brand Preference Compatibility (RPBPC)

Abstract

The Romantic Partner Brand Preference Compatibility (RPBPC) scale is a concise, psychometrically validated three-item self-report instrument developed by Danielle J. Brick, Gráinne M. Fitzsimons, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2018). Grounded in the intersection of consumer psychology and dyadic relationship science, the instrument quantifies the degree to which an individual perceives their consumer brand preferences to be aligned, congruent, and harmonious with those of their romantic partner. Although frequently employed as a concise manipulation check or subjective covariate in experimental consumer research, the scale captures a distinct psychological construct: perceived brand compatibility within intimate dyads. Administered via a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”), the RPBPC yields a single composite score derived by averaging the three items. Psychometric evaluations across samples of cohabiting romantic couples demonstrate exceptional internal consistency reliability (α typically exceeding .90), a clean unidimensional factor structure accounting for the vast majority of item variance, and robust convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validities. Notably, the RPBPC reliably predicts relationship satisfaction and subjective life satisfaction, particularly when moderated by interpersonal power dynamics within the dyad. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the scale’s theoretical underpinnings, psychometric properties, factor structure, administration parameters, and clinical/empirical utility in contemporary behavioral science.

Keywords

Romantic Partner Brand Preference Compatibility, Brand Compatibility, Dyadic Consumer Behavior, Consumer Psychology, Interdependence Theory, Relationship Power, Brand Preferences, Cohabitation, Life Satisfaction, Psychometrics

Authors

The Romantic Partner Brand Preference Compatibility scale was developed and introduced by an interdisciplinary team of researchers specializing in marketing, behavioral economics, and social psychology:

• Danielle J. Brick, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire (subsequently at the University of Connecticut). Dr. Brick’s research focuses on consumer well-being, brand relationships, and interpersonal dynamics in consumer decision-making.
• Gráinne M. Fitzsimons, Ph.D. — Professor of Management and Organizations, Fuqua School of Business, and Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University. Dr. Fitzsimons investigates the social psychology of goal pursuit, close relationships, and dyadic self-regulation.
• Tanya L. Chartrand, Ph.D. — Roy J. Bostock Professor of Marketing, Fuqua School of Business, and Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University. Dr. Chartrand is renowned for her foundational work on nonconscious processes, the “chameleon effect,” behavioral mimicry, and implicit social cognition.
• Gavan J. Fitzsimons, Ph.D. — Edward S. & Rose K. Donnell Professor of Marketing and Psychology, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. Dr. Fitzsimons is an expert on nonconscious consumer behavior, brand relationships, and interpersonal consumer choice.

Purpose

The foundational objective of the RPBPC scale is to provide a reliable, face-valid, and theoretically grounded metric assessing an individual’s subjective perception of brand preference concordance within a romantic relationship. Historically, consumer research treated purchasing decisions either as isolated individual cognitive processes or as generic familial utility functions. However, modern consumer psychology acknowledges that romantic dyads operate as interdependent consuming units, regularly encountering thousands of mundane and high-involvement consumption choices ranging from grocery items (e.g., Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi, organic vs. conventional produce) to durable goods, automobiles, and entertainment platforms.

Prior to the work of Brick et al. (2018), researchers lacked a standardized, parsimonious metric to capture the subjective perception of shared brand tastes. While objective brand congruence can be calculated through dyadic agreement matrices across explicit product categories, subjective brand compatibility captures the psychological meaning, resonance, and perceived friction (or lack thereof) associated with everyday domestic consumption. The purpose of the RPBPC is threefold:

• Measurement of Perceived Dyadic Brand Harmony: It gauges whether individuals feel that their personal consumer identities seamlessly integrate with their partner’s consumer preferences, avoiding the chronic decision fatigue and cognitive dissonance associated with opposed tastes.
• Experimental Manipulation and Covariate Verification: In experimental designs, the scale functions as an efficient manipulation check when researchers prime or alter perceptions of brand compatibility, verifying that relational brand congruence has been successfully manipulated without fatiguing participants.
• Investigation of Interpersonal Well-Being and Power Asymmetries: In dyadic field studies, the instrument serves as an essential predictor or moderator. It illuminates how micro-level consumption frictions accumulate over time to influence macro-level relational outcomes, such as conflict frequency, relationship quality, and overall life satisfaction, especially among partners who possess lower decision-making power in the dyad.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the RPBPC is Perceived Romantic Partner Brand Preference Compatibility. This is defined as an individual’s cognitive appraisal of the extent to which their preferred commercial brands, product identities, and consumption tastes harmonize with those of their romantic partner. Rather than representing an objective inventory of matched purchases, the construct reflects a socio-cognitive schema regarding dyadic compatibility in consumer spaces.

To fully understand this construct, it must be situated within the broader literature on romantic relationship functioning and extended self-theory (Belk, 1988). Brands in contemporary society do not merely serve utilitarian functions; they represent core facets of personal identity, value orientation, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle aspirations. When two adults enter a cohabiting relationship, their respective extended selves merge into a shared domestic environment. Consequently, everyday brand choices become an arena for interpersonal coordination:

• Everyday Domestic Friction vs. Facilitation: When partners hold divergent preferences in high-frequency categories (such as food staples, household cleaners, streaming services, or personal electronics), ordinary purchasing tasks transform into chronic micro-negotiations. High perceived compatibility reflects a psychological state of effortless coordination, whereas low compatibility signifies chronic divergence, compromise, or perceived concession.
• Subjective Representation vs. Objective Congruence: Psychological research demonstrates that subjective perceptions of similarity often exert stronger influences on relationship satisfaction than objective similarity (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). An individual may share 80% of brand choices with their partner but feel acutely distressed by conflict over a single highly salient brand (e.g., Apple vs. Android). The RPBPC captures this overarching, holistic appraisal of harmony.
• Identity Threat and Validation: When a partner validates and shares one’s brand choices, it reinforces the individual’s consumer identity. Conversely, having one’s favored brands rejected or criticized by an intimate partner may be perceived as an implicit rejection of one’s taste, sophistication, or cultural values.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underpinning the RPBPC integrates three classical traditions in social and psychological science: Interdependence Theory, the Self-Expansion Model, and Dyadic Power Theory.

1. Interdependence Theory

Formulated by Harold Kelley and John Thibaut (1978), Interdependence Theory posits that the structure of interpersonal interactions determines relational outcomes through mutual matrix coordination. When couples navigate shared domestic spaces, their outcomes are intrinsically linked. If Partner A prefers Brand X and Partner B prefers Brand Y, the couple faces non-correspondent outcomes. In such situations, one or both partners must transform their basic self-centered preferences into pro-relationship behaviors or engage in bargaining. The RPBPC assesses the subjective evaluation of outcome correspondence in consumption choices: high scores indicate high outcome correspondence (harmony), whereas low scores indicate ongoing transactional trade-offs.

2. The Self-Expansion Model

Arthur and Elaine Aron’s (1991) Self-Expansion Theory posits that individuals possess a fundamental drive to expand their potential efficacy and self-concept by incorporating close others into the self (“inclusion of other in the self”). In modern consumer culture, brands function as meaningful self-extensions (Belk, 1988). When romantic partners exhibit compatible brand preferences, brand self-expansion occurs smoothly; the partner’s preferred brands validate and complement one’s own identity. In contrast, incompatible brand preferences can create identity boundary conflicts within the dyad.

3. Dyadic Power Theory and Interpersonal Dominance

Brick et al. (2018) integrated social power theory (French & Raven, 1959; Simpson, Farrell, Oriña, & Rothman, 2007) to explain why brand compatibility carries asymmetric relational consequences. In romantic couples, the partner with higher interpersonal power typically dictates consumption decisions when preferences clash. Consequently, the low-power partner must continually consume their partner’s preferred brands, suppressing their own consumer identity. For low-power individuals, low brand preference compatibility leads to significant declines in relationship satisfaction and life satisfaction. For high-power individuals, brand incompatibility has negligible effects because their preferences dominate household purchasing without personal concession. The RPBPC captures the perceptual substrate upon which these power-moderated relational outcomes unfold.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the RPBPC has been empirically established across multiple investigations involving diverse relationship configurations and cohabiting samples (Brick et al., 2018).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by strong correlations between RPBPC scores and objective indices of brand compatibility. In Study 2 of Brick et al. (2018), 415 cohabiting adult participants completed an objective brand-matching paradigm involving major consumer categories (e.g., soda, beer, coffee, automobiles). Participants who exhibited a higher proportion of matched brand choices with their partners scored significantly higher on the subjective RPBPC scale (r ≈ .45 to .58, p < .001). Furthermore, the RPBPC correlates positively with general relationship satisfaction metrics, such as the Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007), and perceived interpersonal similarity measures, demonstrating convergent validity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity assessments confirm that perceived brand preference compatibility is distinct from generalized relationship happiness or global optimism. Factor analytic and regression analyses reveal that while the RPBPC shares common variance with relationship satisfaction (typically r = .30 to .42), it does not collapse into a global evaluation factor. When entering the RPBPC alongside measures of personality compatibility (Big Five domain similarity) and general demographic congruence, the RPBPC accounts for unique, incremental variance in domestic conflict related to household consumption tasks.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The scale demonstrates notable criterion validity in predicting both micro-level daily consumption friction and macro-level psychological well-being:

• Moderated Moderation of Life Satisfaction: Across multiple studies in Brick et al. (2018), the interaction between RPBPC scores and relationship power significantly predicted overall life satisfaction (β = .18 to .24, p < .01). Specifically, low brand compatibility exerted a pronounced negative effect on life satisfaction exclusively for low-power romantic partners who consistently conceded brand choices.
• Behavioral Choice in In-Lab Dyadic Tasks: In dyadic laboratory tasks where partners jointly selected consumable snacks or branded beverages, couples with lower composite RPBPC scores displayed significantly higher observed nonverbal tension, prolonged decision latency, and verbal negotiation conflict compared to couples with elevated compatibility scores.

Reliability

The RPBPC scale exhibits robust internal consistency across varied empirical contexts:

• Internal Consistency: In the initial validation study reported by Brick et al. (2018, Study 2), conducted with 415 cohabiting U.S. participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk who were in a relationship for at least six months and cohabiting for at least three months, the three-item instrument demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .92. Subsequent replications and related experimental paradigms have consistently observed reliability coefficients ranging from α = .89 to α = .95.
• Composite Reliability and Inter-Item Correlations: The average inter-item correlation among the three items typically ranges between r = .74 and r = .85, indicating strong item homogeneity without excessive redundancy. Composite reliability indices (Raykov’s rho or McDonald’s ω) routinely exceed .91.
• Test-Retest Reliability: While designed primarily as a cross-sectional measure sensitive to consumer shifts and relational changes, short-term test-retest reliability across a two-week lag in stable cohabiting couples yields a stability coefficient of r ≈ .81, confirming that perceived brand compatibility remains relatively stable over short periods in established domestic partnerships.

Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the RPBPC consistently substantiate a unidimensional latent model:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In exploratory factor analytic investigations utilizing maximum likelihood extraction with unrotated solutions, the three items reliably load onto a single dominant latent factor. The primary eigenvalue typically exceeds 2.50 (e.g., λ ≈ 2.62 in Brick et al., 2018 datasets), explaining over 85% of the total item variance. Scree plot analyses demonstrate a definitive drop-off after the first component, with subsequent eigenvalues remaining far below the standard Kaiser-Guttman threshold of 1.0 (subsequent eigenvalues < 0.25).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Because a three-item single-factor model is mathematically just-identified (zero degrees of freedom), classical CFA fit indices (χ², CFI, TLI, RMSEA) are evaluated either under tau-equivalent constraints or within larger multi-trait measurement models:

• Standardized Factor Loadings: When evaluated within structural equation models alongside latent constructs of relationship power and life satisfaction, the standardized factor loadings for all three items are uniformly high and statistically significant (p < .001):
• Item 1 (“My partner and I prefer the same brands”): Standardized λ = .88 – .92
• Item 2 (“My partner and I have similar brand preferences”): Standardized λ = .91 – .95
• Item 3 (“My partner and I are compatible when it comes to brand choices”): Standardized λ = .85 – .90
• Model Fit in Structural Paradigms: Embedded within broader measurement batteries, the single-factor specification exhibits exceptional fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .98, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .97, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .05, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .03.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Romantic Partner Brand Preference Compatibility (RPBPC)
• Original Authors: Danielle J. Brick, Gráinne M. Fitzsimons, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2018)
• Construct Assessed: Perceived concordance, similarity, and harmony of consumer brand choices between romantic partners
• Instrument Format: Self-report paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire
• Item Count: 3 items
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree)
• Target Population: Adults currently involved in romantic relationships, particularly cohabiting couples or couples with shared domestic consumption responsibilities
• Administration Time: Less than 1 minute
• Scoring Procedure:
  • All items are framed in a positive direction (no reverse scoring is required).
  • A single composite score is generated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the three items: Composite Score = (Item 1 + Item 2 + Item 3) / 3.
  • Scores range from 1.00 to 7.00, where higher numerical values indicate greater perceived brand preference compatibility with the romantic partner.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Romantic Partner Brand Preference Compatibility scale was published in 2018 in the Journal of Consumer Research (Brick et al., 2018). Under standard academic fair use principles, the scale may be utilized by independent scholars, university researchers, and educators for non-commercial scientific investigations without royalty fees, provided appropriate scholarly attribution and citation are rendered to the original authors and the copyright holder (Oxford University Press / Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.). For commercial market research applications, corporate testing, or distribution within proprietary commercial assessment batteries, researchers should contact the corresponding author or Oxford University Press Permissions Department to verify licensing requirements.

References

• Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241
• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
• Brick, D. J., Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2018). Coke vs. Pepsi: Brand compatibility, relationship power, and life satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 991–1014. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx090
• French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan Press.
• Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
• Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. John Wiley & Sons.
• Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700
• Simpson, J. A., Farrell, A. K., Oriña, M. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2007). Power and influence in close relationships: An approach-avoidance framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1024

Items of the Scale