Comparison Effects on Preference Construction
AbstractConsumers frequently compare alternatives to make similarity and preference judgments. Recent research suggests that the construction of both similarity and preference judgments can be captured by a feature-matching model that allows for shifts in the relative weights assigned to the various features of the alternatives being compared. An implication of this model is that engaging in one comparative process (e.g., similarity) can influence the relative weight assigned to the features that are considered in a second comparative judgment (e.g., preference). Our main proposition that the type and direction of the initial comparison process has a systematic effect on subsequent preference judgments and choice was tested in a series of studies. One study, which focused on alternatives about which consumers have information in memory, shows that the direction of an initial comparison task that elicits differences between two options systematically alters their relative attractiveness in a subsequent preference task. In two subsequent studies, the effect of engaging in an initial comparison task on subsequent preference judgments was tested for stimulus-based choice sets. The results on choice deferral and choice satisfaction were consistent with the notion that engaging in similarity/dissimilarity comparisons altered the relative weight assigned to common and unique features for the two alternatives. Mouselab was used to support the decision mechanisms underlying the effect of the initial similarity/dissimilarity judgments. An additional study examined how the effect of adding common features on subsequent preference was also contingent on the initial comparison task. We conclude with a study involving real consequences and a discussion of the theoretical and practical goals of our findings. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Consumer Research.
Volume (Year): 26 (1999)
Issue (Month): 3 (December)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JCR/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Posavac, Steven S. & Kardes, Frank R. & Josko Brakus, J., 2010. "Focus induced tunnel vision in managerial judgment and decision making: The peril and the antidote," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 102-111, November.
- Pechtl, Hans, 2011. "Die Präferenzwirkung nicht-verfügbarer Alternativen: Der Phantomeffekt," Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere 01/2011, Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Faculty of Law and Economics.
- Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division).
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.