IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v116y2011i1p129-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing what I want or keeping what I should: The effect of decision strategy on choice consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Kogut, Tehila

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kogut, Tehila, 2011. "Choosing what I want or keeping what I should: The effect of decision strategy on choice consistency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 129-139, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:116:y:2011:i:1:p:129-139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000732
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Carmon, Ziv & Wertenbroch, Klaus & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2003. "Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(1), pages 15-29, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    2. Rasch, Carsten & Louviere, Jordan J. & Teichert, Thorsten, 2015. "Using facial EMG and eye tracking to study integral affect in discrete choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 32-47.

    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. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    2. Mourali, Mehdi & Nagpal, Anish, 2013. "The powerful select, the powerless reject: Power's influence in decision strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 874-880.
    3. Heller, Daniel & Levin, Irwin P. & Goransson, Martin, 2002. "Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1194-1213, November.
    4. John D. Jasper & Daniel Ansted, 2008. "Liberal-conservative differences in inclusion-exclusion strategy choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 417-424, June.
    5. Botti, Simona & Hsee, Christopher K., 2010. "Dazed and confused by choice: How the temporal costs of choice freedom lead to undesirable outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 161-171, July.
    6. Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward, 2004. "Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 114-128, March.
    7. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:417-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    10. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
    11. Shaffer, Victoria A. & Arkes, Hal R., 2009. "Preference reversals in evaluations of cash versus non-cash incentives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 859-872, December.
    12. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    13. Tatiana Dyachenko & Rebecca Walker Reczek & Greg M. Allenby, 2014. "Models of Sequential Evaluation in Best-Worst Choice Tasks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 828-848, November.
    14. Stachtiaris, Spiros & Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Klonaris, Stathis, 2011. "The "more is less" phenomenon in Contingent and Inferred valuation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. 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.
    16. Ifat Maoz & Ilan Yaniv & Naama Ivri, 2006. "Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000065, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. Boeri, Marco & Scarpa, Riccardo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-135.
    18. Netta Barak-Corre & Chia-Jung Tsay & Fiery Cushman & Max H. Bazerman, 2018. "If You’re Going to Do Wrong, At Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1528-1540, April.
    19. Ifat Maoz & Ilan Yaniv & Naama Ivri, 2006. "Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Discussion Paper Series dp423, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    20. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    21. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.

    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:116:y:2011:i:1:p:129-139. 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.