How can a selected and a rejected option turn out to be the same one?

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01010

Abstract

Abstract:

Decisions can be remarkably influenced by how an option is framed and elicited. However, as a special variant of the elicited method, the potential value and application of selection and rejection have been traditionally underestimated by researchers. The discrepancies between selection and rejection can be represented in five aspects, including cognitive effort, attention, decision criteria, and so on. Over the past 30 years, the enrichment paradigm, phased narrowing technique, and direct inquiry methods have gradually developed as paradigms. These have helped explore some relatively mature theoretical hypotheses, such as compatibility principle, commitment hypothesis, and accentuation hypothesis, to illustrate the inherent mechanism of the difference between the selection and rejection response modes. Meanwhile, the selection and rejection response mode has played a driving role in consumer behavior, health care, and other areas. Future studies may consider the application value and promotion practice of the selection and rejection response mode as a tool of nudging. This work attempts to shed light on the knowledge of selection and rejection as well as showing new applications for future research.

Key words: response mode, selection and rejection, choice architecture, mechanism, nudge

CLC Number:

HUANG Yuan-Na, LI Yun-Xiao, LI Shu. How can a selected and a rejected option turn out to be the same one?[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2021, 29(6): 1010-1021.

Figures/Tables 3

References 56

[1]	何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 以小拨大: 行为决策助推社会发展. 心理学报, 50(8),803-813. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00803
[2]	黄元娜, 宋星云, 邵洋, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 以小拨大: 默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记. 心理学报, 50(8),868-879. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00868
[3]	黄元娜, 魏子晗, 沈丝楚, 王晓田, 葛列众, 何贵兵, 李纾. (2017). 互联网海量信息环境对人类决策提出的挑战及其应对方式. 应用心理学, 23(3),195-209. http://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/21730
[4]	刘隽, 张震, 孙彦, 韩布新, 陆勤, 刘萍萍. (2019). 接受还是拒绝? 反应模式助推基础课与拓展课均衡选择. 心理学报, 51(4),437-449. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00437
[5]	刘永芳, 范雯健, 侯日霞. (2019). 从理论到研究, 再到应用: 塞勒及其贡献. 心理科学进展, 27(3),381-393. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00381
[6]	Apadula, L. T., & Martins, C. M. (2019). When virtue is not an option: Decision making in unhealthy food choices. Nutrition and Health, 25(3), 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0260106019850997
[7]	Bettman, J. R., Luce, M.F.& Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187-217. https://doi.org/10.1086/209535 doi: 10.1086/jcr.1998.25.issue-3 URL
[8]	Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1),14-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7
[9]	Butsunturn, C., & Roberts, A. (2015). 2015 year in review: Slumping customer satisfaction across much of the U.S. economy. American Customer Satisfaction Index, Retrieved April 7, 2015, from https://www.theacsi.org/images/stories/images/news/15dec_year-review_press.pdf
[10]	Chan, E. Y., & Wang, Y. (2018). Rejecting options from large and small choice sets: The mediating role of confidence. European Journal of Marketing, 52(9), 1845-1863. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0192
[11]	Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2017). Role of accentuation in the selection/rejection task framing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(4), 543-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000277
[12]	Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M. (1999). The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 369-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209545
[13]	Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718 URL
[14]	Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M. (2004). To buy or not to buy: Response mode effects on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 423-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.4.423.47016 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.41.4.423.47016 URL
[15]	Finkelstein, E. A., French, S. A., Variyam, J. N., & Haines, P. S. (2004). Pros and cons of proposed interventions to promote healthy eating. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(3), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.017 doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.017 URL
[16]	Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(1), 113-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1036 doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1036 URL
[17]	Goldstone, R. L. (1993). Feature distribution and biased estimation of visual displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(3), 564-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.3.564 doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.19.3.564 URL
[18]	Heller, D., Levin, I. P., & Goransson, M. (2002). Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2),1194-1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00028-6 doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00028-6 URL
[19]	Huber, V. L., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1987). Decision bias and personnel selection strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(1),136-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90009-4 doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90009-4 URL
[20]	Irwin, J. R., & Naylor, R. W. (2009). Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 234-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.2.234 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.2.234 URL
[21]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47,263-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609220.014 doi: 10.2307/1914185 URL
[22]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4),341-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
[23]	Kogut, T. (2011). Choosing what I want or keeping what I should: The effect of decision strategy on choice consistency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.010 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.010 URL
[24]	Krishnamurthy, P., & Nagpal, A. (2008). The impact of goal framing on the choose-reject discrepancy. ACR North American Advances, 35,784-785.
[25]	Laran, J., & Wilcox, K. (2011). Choice, rejection, and elaboration on preference-inconsistent alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1086/659040 doi: 10.1086/659040 URL
[26]	Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. 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, 82(2), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2881 URL pmid: 10891294
[27]	Levin, I. P., & Jasper, J. D. (1995). Phased narrowing: A new process tracing method for decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1084 doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1084 URL
[28]	Levin, I. P., Jasper, J. D., & Forbes, W. S. (1998). Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(3), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199809)11:3<193::AID-BDM297>3.0.CO;2-G doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771 URL
[29]	Levin, I. P., Schreiber, J., Lauriola, M., & Gaeth, G. J. (2002). A tale of two pizzas: Building up from a basic product versus scaling down from a fully-loaded product. Marketing Letters, 13(4), 335-344. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020370516638 doi: 10.1023/A:1020370516638 URL
[30]	Li, S., Li, Y. R., Su, Y., & Rao, L. L. (2012). Is an idea different from cake: Can you have it and eat it, too? A violation of permanence in information consumption. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e41490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041490 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041490 URL
[31]	Luo, J., & Yu, R. (2017). The spreading of alternatives: Is it the perceived choice or actual choice that changes our preference? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 484-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1967 doi: 10.1002/bdm.v30.2 URL
[32]	Machin, J. (2016). Choosing by selecting or rejecting: How decision strategy influences consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 29(5), 5-29.
[33]	McDonald, R. I., Newell, B. R., & Denson, T. F. (2014). Would you rule out going green? The effect of inclusion versus exclusion mindset on pro-environmental willingness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 507-513. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2040 doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2040 URL
[34]	Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2004). Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2), 114-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.12.002 URL
[35]	Nagpal, A., & Krishnamurthy, P. (2007). Attribute conflict in consumer decision making: The role of task compatibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 696-705. https://doi.org/10.1086/521903 doi: 10.1086/521903 URL
[36]	Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263-276. https://doi.org/10.1086/208556 doi: 10.1086/jcr.1990.17.issue-3 URL
[37]	Ordóñez, L. D., Benson, L., & Beach, L. R. (1999). Testing the compatibility test: How instructions, accountability, and anticipated regret affect prechoice screening of options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2823 URL pmid: 10092471
[38]	Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & MacInnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.2.187.18731 URL
[39]	Perfecto, H., Galak, J., Simmons, J. P., & Nelson, L. D. (2017). Rejecting a bad option feels like choosing a good one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(5), 659-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000092 doi: 10.1037/pspa0000092 URL pmid: 28737416
[40]	Pieters, R., & Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(1),1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00022-6 doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00022-6 URL
[41]	Puto, C. P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209115 doi: 10.1086/jcr.1987.14.issue-3 URL
[42]	Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461 doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461 URL
[43]	Schotter, E. R., Berry, R. W., Mckenzie, C. R. M., & Rayner, K. (2010). Gaze bias: Selective encoding and liking effects. Visual Cognition, 18(8), 1113-1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506281003668900 doi: 10.1080/13506281003668900 URL
[44]	Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546-556. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197186 doi: 10.3758/BF03197186 URL
[45]	Shafir, E. (2018). The workings of choosing and rejecting: Commentary on many labs 2. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 495-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918814812 doi: 10.1177/2515245918814812 URL
[46]	Sokolova, T., & Krishna, A. (2016). Take it or leave it: How choosing versus rejecting alternatives affects information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 614-635. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw049 doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw049 URL
[47]	Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 URL pmid: 16393019
[48]	Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[49]	Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 428-439). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[50]	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683 doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 URL
[51]	Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371-384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371 doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371 URL
[52]	Wedell, D. H. (1997). Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting. Memory & Cognition, 25(6), 873-887. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211332 doi: 10.3758/BF03211332 URL
[53]	Wickens, C. D. (2014). Effort in human factors performance and decision making. Human Factors, 56(8), 1329-1336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720814558419 doi: 10.1177/0018720814558419 URL
[54]	Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (1997). Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(3), 211-220.
[55]	Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (2000). Acceptance and elimination procedures in choice: Noncomplementarity and the role of implied status quo. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 293-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2899 URL pmid: 10891299
[56]	Yaniv, I., Schul, Y., Raphaelli-Hirsch, R., & Maoz, I. (2002). Inclusive and exclusive modes of thinking: Studies of prediction, preference, and social perception during parliamentary elections. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(4),352-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00004-5 doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00004-5 URL

情景		贫乏选项		丰富选项
情景一：孩子监护权情景	家长A	普通收入	家长B	高于平均水平的收入
		平均健康水平		与孩子的关系非常密切
		普通的工作时间		社会生活极端活跃
		与孩子关系一般		频繁出公差
		相对稳定的社会生活		健康有些小问题
情景二：度假胜地情景	度假胜地A	天气一般	度假胜地B	天气晴朗
		海滩一般		美丽的海滩和珊瑚礁
		普通酒店		超现代酒店
		中等温度水域		非常冷的水域
		夜生活一般		没有夜生活

情景		贫乏选项		丰富选项
情景一：孩子监护权情景	家长A	普通收入	家长B	高于平均水平的收入
		平均健康水平		与孩子的关系非常密切
		普通的工作时间		社会生活极端活跃
		与孩子关系一般		频繁出公差
		相对稳定的社会生活		健康有些小问题
情景二：度假胜地情景	度假胜地A	天气一般	度假胜地B	天气晴朗
		海滩一般		美丽的海滩和珊瑚礁
		普通酒店		超现代酒店
		中等温度水域		非常冷的水域
		夜生活一般		没有夜生活

研究范式	选项内容是否一致	提问方式是否一致	是否可追踪决策过程
丰富选项范式	不同选项(丰富选项 vs 贫乏选项)	选择 vs 拒绝	无法追踪
分阶段缩小技术	同一选项	选择 vs 拒绝	可追踪决策过程
直接询问法	同一选项	选择 vs 拒绝	无法追踪

研究范式	选项内容是否一致	提问方式是否一致	是否可追踪决策过程
丰富选项范式	不同选项(丰富选项 vs 贫乏选项)	选择 vs 拒绝	无法追踪
分阶段缩小技术	同一选项	选择 vs 拒绝	可追踪决策过程
直接询问法	同一选项	选择 vs 拒绝	无法追踪