IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v29y2002i3p319-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Nowlis, Stephen M
  • Kahn, Barbara E
  • Dhar, Ravi

Abstract

This article examines how the exclusion of a neutral or fence-sitting option changes an expressed attitude or preference judgment. Over a series of six studies, we find that the exclusion of a neutral response option (1) affects the judgment of extreme options (strong positive and negative features) more significantly than the judgment of options that are average on all features, (2) results in respondents favoring the option superior on the more important attribute, and (3) results in more risk aversion. We also provide evidence for the underlying process and show that our findings are moderated by individual differences on need for cognition and tolerance for ambiguity. Copyright 2002 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Nowlis, Stephen M & Kahn, Barbara E & Dhar, Ravi, 2002. "Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 319-334, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:29:y:2002:i:3:p:319-34
    DOI: 10.1086/344431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/344431
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/344431?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    2. Cabooter, Elke & Weijters, Bert & Geuens, Maggie & Vermeir, Iris, 2016. "Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2574-2584.
    3. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    4. Audrezet, Alice & Parguel, Béatrice, 2018. "Using the Evaluative Space Grid to better capture manifest ambivalence in customer satisfaction surveys," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 285-295.
    5. Carla Heloisa de Faria Domingues & João Augusto Rossi Borges & Clandio Favarini Ruviaro & Diego Gomes Freire Guidolin & Juliana Rosa Mauad Carrijo, 2020. "Understanding the factors influencing consumer willingness to accept the use of insects to feed poultry, cattle, pigs and fish in Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-11, April.
    6. Zhi Zhang & Zhaoying Yang & Jiang Gu & Moon-Seop Kim, 2023. "How Does Multinational Corporations’ CSR Influence Purchase Intention? The Role of Consumer Ethnocentrism and Consumer Ambivalence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, March.
    7. DeWeaver, Mark A. & Shannon, Randall, 2010. "Waning vigilance and the disposition effect: Evidence from Thailand on individual investor decision making," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 18-23, January.
    8. Kivilcim Dogerlioglu-Demir & Cenk Koçaş & Nilsah Cavdar Aksoy, 2023. "The role of presentation order in consumer choice: the abrupt disparity effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 251-268, June.
    9. Anne Hamby & Cristel Russell, 2022. "How does ambivalence affect young consumers’ response to risky products?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 841-863, July.
    10. Yang, Xue & Liu, Na & Teo, Hock Hai, 2017. "How do users cope with trial restrictions? A field experiment on free trial software," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 339-349.
    11. Dekel Omer & Schurr Amos, 2014. "Cognitive Biases in Government Procurement – An Experimental Study," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-32, July.
    12. Pengsheng Ni & Molly Marino & Emily Dore & Lily Sonis & Colleen M Ryan & Jeffrey C Schneider & Alan M Jette & Lewis E Kazis, 2019. "Extreme response style bias in burn survivors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Sipilä, Jenni & Herold, Kristiina & Tarkiainen, Anssi & Sundqvist, Sanna, 2017. "The influence of word-of-mouth on attitudinal ambivalence during the higher education decision-making process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 176-187.
    14. Antonio Tintori & Giulia Ciancimino & Giorgio Giovanelli & Loredana Cerbara, 2021. "Bullying and Cyberbullying among Italian Adolescents: The Influence of Psychosocial Factors on Violent Behaviours," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-11, February.
    15. Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & Van Ourti, Tom & Soebhag, Amar, 2023. "Reducing socioeconomic health inequalities? A questionnaire study of majorization and invariance conditions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:48-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Luis Márquez & Víctor Cantillo & Julián Arellana, 2020. "Assessing the influence of indicators’ complexity on hybrid discrete choice model estimates," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 373-396, February.
    18. Sánchez, Gonzalo E. & Rhodes, Lauren A. & Espinoza, Nereyda E. & Borja, Viviana, 2022. "Assessing the Gap between Social and Individual Perceptions of Sexual Harassment," MPRA Paper 112711, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    20. Reich, Taly & Fulmer, Alexander G. & Dhar, Ravi, 2022. "In the face of self-threat: Why ambivalence heightens people’s willingness to act," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    21. Jae Seo, Won & Christine Green, B. & Jae Ko, Yong & Lee, Seunghwan & Schenewark, Jarrod, 2007. "The Effect of Web Cohesion, Web Commitment, and Attitude toward the Website on Intentions to Use NFL Teams' Websites," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 231-252, November.
    22. Todd McElroy & Keith Dowd, 2007. "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 48-53, February.

    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:oup:jconrs:v:29:y:2002:i:3:p:319-34. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.