Choosing what I want or keeping what I should: The effect of decision strategy on choice consistency
We examine decision-makers' consistency vis-à-vis their own priorities in a multi-choice task, using either an inclusion or exclusion strategy to reduce a set of alternatives. Four studies demonstrate that people's decisions are more consistent with their priorities when using an exclusion vs. an inclusion strategy to screen alternatives. Moreover, this effect was stronger for less knowledgeable than for more knowledgeable decision-makers. We examined two possible mechanisms behind this phenomenon. First, we suggest that the process of thinking about the positive aspects of the alternatives (associated with inclusion) encourages the decision-maker to more favorably evaluate options initially given low marks, resulting in less consistency with preferences. We also show that under exclusion, people tend to select the alternatives that they think they should choose, while under inclusion they tend to choose options that are more in line with what they would like to have but which may be perceived as luxuries.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 116 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (September)
Pages: 129-139
| Handle: | RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:116:y:2011:i:1:p:129-139 |
| Contact details of provider: | Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp
|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
- Huber, Vandra L. & Neale, Margaret A. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1987. "Decision bias and personnel selection strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 136-147, August.
- Yaniv, Ilan & Schul, Yaacov, 2000. "Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status quo," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 293-313, July.
- Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1995. "Outcome Knowledge, Regret, and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 119-127, November.
- Levin, Irwin P. & Huneke, Mary E. & Jasper, J. D., 2000. "Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion-Exclusion Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 171-193, July.
- Ordonez, Lisa D. & Benson, Lehman & Beach, Lee Roy, 1999. "Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 63-80, April.
- Irwin, Julie R & Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah & McClelland, Gary H., 1993. "Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
- Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
- Carmon, Ziv & Wertenbroch, Klaus & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2003. " Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 15-29, June.
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:116:y:2011:i:1:p:129-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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.