In all studies Subject ID is a unique ID for each subject. Study 1A * Match is the filled in match value; Choice represents choice with filled in matched value; P1-P8 correspond to rows 1-8 in Table 1 and Q1-Q4 correspond to rows 9-12. The matched values for color (i.e., P7, P8, Q1, and Q2) need to be reverse scored (11 - original score) to match to tables in the manuscript. * Gender: 1 = female; 0 = male * Marital status: 1 = engaged, 2 = married, 3 = single, 4 = divorced, 5 = widowed * Relationship: 1 = currently in a serious relationship, 0 = single * Knowledge: self-reported knowledge of engagement rings 1 (very low) to 7 (very high) * Carat, color, and cost rank: the importance ratings for each attribute Study 1B * Tradeoff Type: experimental condition * Match: filled in matched value (carat weight) * Choice: 1 = chooses high carat diamond * Gender: 1 = female; 0 = male * Engaged: 1 = Yes, 0 = No * Marital status: 1 = engaged, 2 = married, 3 = single, 4 = divorced, 5 = widowed * Knowledge: self-reported knowledge of engagement rings 1 (very low) to 7 (very high) * Purchased: whether or not they have purchased an engagement ring before, 1= purchase, 0 = has not purchased * Carat, color, and cost rank: the importance ratings for each attribute Study 2 * SacredCondition: sacred, funeral purchase or secular, non-funeral purchase * PriceCondition: search for better price or better quality option * AttnCheck: 1 = pass, 0 = fail; a brief check asking people to write “I read the instructions” * Willing: willingness to search * Miles: number of miles they would drive to find a better product * Importance: importance of search attribute (price or quality) Study 3 * NegoVariableCondition: whether they were negotiating on price or quantity * Order: whether they negotiate for acquaintance or loved one first * There are two sets of DVs for scenarios – one for when participants negotiate for a loved one (starting with “Love_”) and one when negotiating for an acquaintance (starting with “Acq_”) * Text: Short description of relationship with person in scenario * Name: Name of that person * LikelyNego: Likelihood of negotiating for lower price or higher quantity (depending on experimental condition) * Number: Initial offer of dollars off or additional cupcakes * NumberSameScale: Same initial offers, converted to dollar values * Counteroffer: If the owner offered to split the difference between your initial offer and the original offer, how likely would you be to counteroffer * ComfortNegotiating: How comfortable they are negotiating (in text, these means are reported as Comfort -4 to center the variable so that negative values are uncomfortable, positive values are comfortable) * ComfortNegotiationExplainOpen: Open-ended question that asked why they indicated their “Comfort” level as they did in previous question * Personalization: willingness to pay to personalize cupcakes on 7 point scale * PersonalizationOpen: open-ended willingness to pay to personalize cupcakes, dollars * GenWillNeg_1: Did the fact that you would be haggling with the store owner directly influence your willingness to negotiate? -3 = made me less likely to negotiate 0 = no influence at all 3 = Made me more likely to negotiate * GenWillNeg_2: How likely are you to haggle with retailers in general? 1 = not at all likely, 7 = very likely * GenWillNeg_3: How likely are you to haggle with someone holding a yard sale or at a flea market? 1 = not at all likely, 7 = very likely * PriceonLove_1: “You can put a price on Love” 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree * PriceonLove_2: “When you buy something for someone else, the price you pay reflects how much you love them”1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree * Gender: 1 male, 2 = female * Understanding: “Did you understand the negotiation task and why you might negotiate with the owner? If you didn't understand please explain your thinking below.” * AttnCheck: 1 = pass, 0 = fail; a brief check asking people to write “I read the instructions”