IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/doi10.1086-659040.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice, Rejection, and Elaboration on Preference-Inconsistent Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Juliano Laran
  • Keith Wilcox

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that rejecting product alternatives (i.e., choosing which alternatives to give up) may cause preference reversals compared to choosing alternatives. We provide an investigation into the psychological processes underlying this phenomenon. These preference reversals can be caused by increased elaboration on the features of preference-inconsistent alternatives when people reject alternatives. When these features are appealing, increased elaboration increases preference for preference-inconsistent alternatives. When these features are unappealing, increased elaboration may reduce preference for preference-inconsistent alternatives. The findings provide insight into how the amount of elaboration on product alternatives may mediate the influence of different decision-making tasks on decision outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Juliano Laran & Keith Wilcox, 2011. "Choice, Rejection, and Elaboration on Preference-Inconsistent Alternatives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 229-241.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/659040
    DOI: 10.1086/659040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659040
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659040
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/659040?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Besharat, Ali & Romero, Marisabel & Haws, Kelly, 2021. "Customizing calories: How rejecting (vs. selecting) ingredients leads to lower calorie estimation and unhealthier food choices," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 424-438.
    3. Scott W. Davis & Kelly L. Haws, 2017. "Don’t Sweat the Big Stuff: Emphasizing Importance Hinders Goal Pursuit for Consumers Low in Dispositional Self-Control Resources," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 93-104.
    4. repec:oup:jecgeo:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:363-381. is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Juliano Laran & Eva Buechel, 2017. "Mental Resources Increase Preference for Dissimilar Experiences," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 123-135.
    6. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    7. Long, James H. & Basoglu, K. Asli, 2016. "The impact of task interruption on tax accountants' professional judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 96-113.
    8. Nicolas Krucien & Jonathan Sicsic & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 572-586, April.

    More about this item

    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:oup:jconrs:doi:10.1086/659040. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.