IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v26y2015i4p437-448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice set induced conflict, deliberation, and persistent preference

Author

Listed:
  • A. Muthukrishnan
  • Robin Chark

Abstract

This research examines the roles of both approach–avoidance and approach–approach conflicts in the relationship between the degree of deliberation and persistence of preference for the chosen option. In three experiments, we reverse the negative effect of deliberation on persistence reported by Nordgren and Dijksterhuis ( 2009 ). In study 1A, we conceptually replicate Nordgren and Dijksterhuis’s results in a choice context with simultaneous presentation of options. In study 1B, we reversed this effect by making minor alterations to the choice set. When the choice set contains a brand with advantage on an irrelevant attribute with conflict caused by the more important attributes remains unchanged, deliberation leads to greater preference stability. In study 2, we obtain process evidence for a reduction in conflict and dominance structuring caused by discrimination in terms of an irrelevant attribute. In study 3, we found that when choice set induces conflict between two attractive options, deliberation causes persistent preference. In study 4, we vary perceived conflict without varying the choice set and replicate the effects obtained in experiments 1A and 1B. Thus, our studies provide evidence for the roles of approach–avoidance and approach–approach conflicts (Coombs and Avrunin 1988 ) in the deliberation–persistence relationship. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • A. Muthukrishnan & Robin Chark, 2015. "Choice set induced conflict, deliberation, and persistent preference," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 437-448, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:26:y:2015:i:4:p:437-448
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-013-9277-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-013-9277-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-013-9277-7?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anish Nagpal & Adwait Khare & Tilottama Chowdhury & Lauren Labrecque & Ameet Pandit, 2011. "The impact of the amount of available information on decision delay: The role of common features," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 405-421, November.
    2. A. V. Muthukrishnan & Luc Wathieu, 2007. "Superfluous Choices and the Persistence of Preference," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(4), pages 454-460, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Song-Oh Yoon & Itamar Simonson, 2008. "Choice Set Configuration as a Determinant of Preference Attribution and Strength," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 324-336, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:213-222 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Anyuan Shen & Shuguang Liu, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance and the stability of constructed preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(3), pages 213-222, May.
    4. Andrews, Demetra, 2016. "Product information and consumer choice confidence in multi-item sales promotions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 45-53.
    5. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Aner Sela & Jonah Berger & Joshua Kim & Gita JoharEditor & Leonard LeeAssociate Editor, 2017. "How Self-Control Shapes the Meaning of Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 724-737.
    10. Dimas Maulana & Sudarso Kaderi Wiryono & Mustika Sufiati Purwanegara, 2019. "Investigating Consumer Preference in Banking Services: A Conjoint Analysis Study," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(3), pages 187-197.
    11. Gael Poux-Medard & Sergio Cobo-Lopez & Jordi Duch & Roger Guimera & Marta Sales-Pardo, 2021. "Complex decision-making strategies in a stock market experiment explained as the combination of few simple strategies," Papers 2103.06121, arXiv.org.
    12. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    13. Yong Liu & Enping Mai & Jun Yang, 2015. "Network externalities in online video games: an empirical analysis utilizing online product ratings," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 679-690, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Thorbjørnsen, Helge & Dahlén, Micael, 2011. "Customer reactions to acquirer-dominant mergers and acquisitions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 332-341.
    16. Yolande Piris & Nathalie Guibert, 2014. "Intuitive judgments effects when evaluating a product assortment," Post-Print hal-01726503, HAL.
    17. Sung-Bum Kim & Seunghwan Lee & Dae-Young Kim, 2018. "The effect of service providers’ facial hair on restaurant customers’ perceptions," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 12(2), pages 277-303, June.
    18. Graciola, Ana Paula & De Toni, Deonir & Milan, Gabriel Sperandio & Eberle, Luciene, 2020. "Mediated-moderated effects: High and low store image, brand awareness, perceived value from mini and supermarkets retail stores," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Alexander Bleier & Maik Eisenbeiss, 2015. "Personalized Online Advertising Effectiveness: The Interplay of What, When, and Where," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 669-688, September.
    21. 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.

    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:kap:mktlet:v:26:y:2015:i:4:p:437-448. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.