IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v16y2021i1p36-56_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accentuation and compatibility: Replication and extensions of Shafir (1993) to rethink choosing versus rejecting paradigms

Author

Listed:
  • Chandrashekar, Subramanya Prasad
  • Weber, Jasmin
  • Chan, Sze Ying
  • Cho, Won Young
  • Chu, Tsz Ching Connie
  • Cheng, Bo Ley
  • Feldman, Gilad

Abstract

We conducted a replication of Shafir (1993) who showed that people are inconsistent in their preferences when faced with choosing versus rejecting decision-making scenarios. The effect was demonstrated using an enrichment paradigm, asking subjects to choose between enriched and impoverished alternatives, with enriched alternatives having more positive and negative features than the impoverished alternative. Using eight different decision scenarios, Shafir found support for a compatibility principle: subjects chose and rejected enriched alternatives in choose and reject decision scenarios (d = 0.32 [0.23,0.40]), respectively, and indicated greater preference for the enriched alternative in the choice task than in the rejection task (d = 0.38 [0.29,0.46]). In a preregistered very close replication of the original study (N = 1026), we found no consistent support for the hypotheses across the eight problems: two had similar effects, two had opposite effects, and four showed no effects (overall d = −0.01 [−0.06,0.03]). Seeking alternative explanations, we tested an extension, and found support for the accentuation hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Chandrashekar, Subramanya Prasad & Weber, Jasmin & Chan, Sze Ying & Cho, Won Young & Chu, Tsz Ching Connie & Cheng, Bo Ley & Feldman, Gilad, 2021. "Accentuation and compatibility: Replication and extensions of Shafir (1993) to rethink choosing versus rejecting paradigms," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 36-56, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:36-56_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008299/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:36-56_3. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.