IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v36y2009i1p39-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Devil Is in the Deliberation: Thinking Too Much Reduces Preference Consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Loran F. Nordgren
  • Ap Dijksterhuis

Abstract

In five experiments we found that deliberation reduces preference consistency. In experiments 1 and 2, participants who deliberated on their preferences were less consistent in their evaluations compared to those who did not deliberate. Experiment 3 demonstrated that this effect is due to the impediment of deliberation and not to the benefit of nondeliberation. We hypothesized that deliberation leads to the inconsistent weighting of information, especially when the information is complex. As such, we predicted and found in experiments 4 and 5 that the extent to which deliberation decreases preference consistency depends upon the complexity of the information. (c) 2008 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Suggested Citation

  • Loran F. Nordgren & Ap Dijksterhuis, 2009. "The Devil Is in the Deliberation: Thinking Too Much Reduces Preference Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 39-46, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:36:y:2009:i:1:p:39-46
    DOI: 10.1086/596306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/596306
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/596306?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Federico Bizzarri & Chiara Mocenni & Silvia Tiezzi, 2023. "A Markov Decision Process with Awareness and Present Bias in Decision-Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Van Kerckhove, Anneleen & Geuens, Maggie & Vermeir, Iris, 2012. "Intention superiority perspectives on preference-decision consistency," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 692-700.
    3. Kristen L. Kovalsky & Jayson L. Lusk, 2013. "Do Consumers Really Know How Much They Are Willing to Pay?," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 98-127, April.
    4. Darren W Dahl & Eileen Fischer & Gita V Johar & Vicki G Morwitz, 2017. "Making Sense from (Apparent) Senselessness: The JCR Lens," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 719-723.
    5. Christian Schlereth & Christine Eckert & Bernd Skiera, 2012. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate willingness-to-pay intervals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 761-776, September.
    6. Christopher J. Wolfe & Brant E. Christensen & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2020. "Intuition versus Analytical Thinking and Impairment Testing†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1598-1621, September.
    7. Moss, Simon A. & Wilson, Samuel G., 2014. "A hole in the ladder: How to reconcile the benefits of equality with the merits of hierarchy," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 636-645.
    8. Shih, Eric & Schau, Hope Jensen, 2011. "To Justify or Not to Justify: The Role of Anticipated Regret on Consumers’ Decisions to Upgrade Technological Innovations," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 242-251.
    9. A. Muthukrishnan & Robin Chark, 2015. "Choice set induced conflict, deliberation, and persistent preference," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 437-448, December.

    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:36:y:2009:i:1:p:39-46. 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.