IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v147y2018icp65-75.html

Choosing for others and its relation to information search

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Yi
  • Polman, Evan
  • Liu, Yongfang
  • Jiao, Jiangli

Abstract

When people make choices, they both identify their options and research the unique details that comprise their options. Respectively, these two search behaviors are called alternative- and attribute-search. The literature treats these separate information search behaviors as a trade-off: Choosing to examine extant alternatives (alternative-search) means suffering the costs of not analyzing the details of alternatives (attribute-search), and vice versa. Here, we found that in choices people make for others, they search for more alternatives and more attributes than in choices people make for themselves. Moreover, we found that when people face a trade-off between searching for alternatives and attributes, people choosing for others will favor alternatives, whereas people choosing for themselves will favor attributes. Thus, we found that the pursuit of information is different when people choose for others (vs. themselves), suggesting a novel pivot to a range of areas in decision making where the alternative-attribute trade-off is ubiquitous.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Yi & Polman, Evan & Liu, Yongfang & Jiao, Jiangli, 2018. "Choosing for others and its relation to information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 65-75.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:147:y:2018:i:c:p:65-75
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597817302923
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.005?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Hanjoon & Herr, Paul M. & Kardes, Frank R. & Kim, Chankon, 1999. "Motivated Search: Effects of Choice Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowledge on Information Acquisition and Use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-88, May.
    2. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    3. Fenja V Ziegler & Richard J Tunney, 2012. "Decisions for Others Become Less Impulsive the Further Away They Are on the Family Tree," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-5, November.
    4. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    5. Jingyi Lu & Zhengyan Liu & Zhe Fang, 2016. "Hedonic products for you, utilitarian products for me," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 332-341, July.
    6. Andrew D. Gershoff & Jonathan J. Koehler, 2011. "Safety First? The Role of Emotion in Safety Product Betrayal Aversion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(1), pages 140-150.
    7. Kray, Laura J., 2000. "Contingent Weighting in Self-Other Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 82-106, September.
    8. Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory, 1997. "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 117-132, February.
    9. Andrew M. Parker & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Baruch Fischhoff, 2007. "Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 342-350, December.
    10. Lu, Jingyi & Xie, Xiaofei, 2014. "To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 47-55.
    11. Rui (Juliet) Zhu & Joan Meyers-Levy, 2007. "Exploring the Cognitive Mechanism that Underlies Regulatory Focus Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(1), pages 89-96, April.
    12. Rebecca W. Hamilton & Debora Viana Thompson, 2007. "Is There a Substitute for Direct Experience? Comparing Consumers' Preferences after Direct and Indirect Product Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(4), pages 546-555, June.
    13. Juliano Laran, 2010. "Goal Management in Sequential Choices: Consumer Choices for Others Are More Indulgent than Personal Choices," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 304-314, August.
    14. Bettman, James R & Park, C Whan, 1980. "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(3), pages 234-248, December.
    15. Polman, Evan, 2012. "Self–other decision making and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 141-150.
    16. Yanping Tu & Alex Shaw & Ayelet Fishbach, 2016. "The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 669-687.
    17. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Deciding for Others Reduces Loss Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 29-36, January.
    18. Liu, Peggy J. & Campbell, Troy H. & Fitzsimons, Gavan J. & Fitzsimons, Gráinne M., 2013. "Matching choices to avoid offending stigmatized group members," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 291-304.
    19. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    20. Jinhee Choi & B. Kyu Kim & Incheol Choi & Youjae Yi, 2006. "Variety-Seeking Tendency in Choice for Others: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Causes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(4), pages 590-595, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cavagnaro, Daniel R. & Yang, Xiaozhi & Regenwetter, Michel, 2024. "Choose for others as you would choose for yourself? A layered analysis of probabilistic preferential choice across social distances," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Kackovic, Monika & Bun, Maurice J.G. & Weinberg, Charles B. & Ebbers, Joris J. & Wijnberg, Nachoem M., 2020. "Third-party signals and sales to expert-agent buyers: Quality indicators in the contemporary visual arts market," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 587-601.
    3. Lane, Tom, 2022. "Intrinsic preferences for unhappy news," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 119-130.
    4. Barrafrem, Kinga & Hausfeld, Jan, 2020. "Tracing risky decisions for oneself and others: The role of intuition and deliberation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Weiss-Cohen, Leonardo & Ayton, Peter & Clacher, Iain & Thoma, Volker, 2022. "Pension scheme trustees as surrogate decision makers," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Kim, Hyunji & Schnall, Simone, 2021. "Profit for friends, fairness for strangers: Social distance reverses the endowment effect in proxy decision making," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    8. Tajdini, Saeed, 2021. "The effects of the subjective-experiential knowledge gap on consumers’ information search behavior and perceptions of consumption risk," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 66-77.
    9. Polman, Evan & Wu, Kaiyang, 2020. "Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    10. Herzenstein, Michal & Dholakia, Utpal M. & Sonenshein, Scott, 2020. "How the number of options affects prosocial choice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 356-370.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Polman, Evan & Wu, Kaiyang, 2020. "Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Polman, Evan, 2012. "Self–other decision making and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 141-150.
    3. Schumacher, Anika & Goukens, Caroline & Geyskens, Kelly, 2021. "Taking care of you and me: How choosing for others impacts self-indulgence within family caregiving relationships," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 715-731.
    4. Munten, Pauline & Swaen, Valérie & Vanhamme, Joëlle, 2024. "Exploring rebound effects in Access-Based services (ABS)," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Ximena Garcia-Rada & Lalin Anik & Dan Ariely, 2019. "Consuming together (versus separately) makes the heart grow fonder," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 27-43, March.
    6. Eraslan, Veysel & Omole, John & Sensoy, Ahmet & Ozdamar, Melisa, 2022. "Other people's money: A comparison of institutional investors," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Weiss-Cohen, Leonardo & Ayton, Peter & Clacher, Iain & Thoma, Volker, 2022. "Pension scheme trustees as surrogate decision makers," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    8. Maferima Touré-Tillery & Lili Wang, 2022. "The Good-on-Paper Effect: How the Decision Context Influences Virtuous Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 1004-1024, September.
    9. Nguyen, Stephanie & Didi Alaoui, Mohamed & Llosa, Sylvie, 2020. "When interchangeability between providers and users makes a difference: The mediating role of social proximity in collaborative services," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 506-515.
    10. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    11. Isabel Busom & Cristina Lopez-Mayan & Judith Panadés & Jordi Brandts, 2022. "Images Say More Than Just Words: Effectiveness of Visual and Text Communication in Dispelling the Rent–Control Misconception," Working Papers 1322, Barcelona School of Economics.
    12. Christian Koch, 2024. "Is there a nexus between pro-social behavior and well-being? Correlational evidence," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 279-293, December.
    13. Maya Bar-Hillel & Tom Noah & Shane Frederick, 2019. "Solving stumpers, CRT and CRAT: Are the abilities related?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(5), pages 620-623, September.
    14. Gauriot, Romain & Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2020. "Altruism or diminishing marginal utility?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 24-48.
    15. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    17. Garcia, Thomas & Massoni, Sébastien & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2020. "Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    18. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Chia-Jung, 2013. "Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 402-413.
    19. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social motives vs social influence: An experiment on interdependent time preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-194.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:147:y:2018:i:c:p:65-75. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.