2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00678.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Construction of Preferences by Constraint Satisfaction

Abstract: Participants were given a choice between two multiattribute alternatives (job offers). Preferences for the attributes were measured before, during, and after the choices were made. We found that over the course of decision making, the preferences shifted to cohere with the choice: The attributes of the option that was eventually chosen came to be rated more favorably than they had been rated initially, while the attributes of the rejected option received lower preference ratings than before. These coherence sh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
113
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 220 publications
(125 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
11
113
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This change had no effect in Carlson et al's (2006) study and actually strengthened the relationship between information order and final choice in DeKay et al's (2008) study. Moreover, numerous studies (e.g., Holyoak & Simon, 1999;Simon, Krawczyk, & Holyoak, 2004;Simon, Snow, & Read, 2004) have documented information distortion in pre-post designs that did not require the selection of an early leader. A second (and opposing) concern is that our procedure might have underestimated the effects of information order because some participants forgot Item 1 before making their final choice.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This change had no effect in Carlson et al's (2006) study and actually strengthened the relationship between information order and final choice in DeKay et al's (2008) study. Moreover, numerous studies (e.g., Holyoak & Simon, 1999;Simon, Krawczyk, & Holyoak, 2004;Simon, Snow, & Read, 2004) have documented information distortion in pre-post designs that did not require the selection of an early leader. A second (and opposing) concern is that our procedure might have underestimated the effects of information order because some participants forgot Item 1 before making their final choice.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risk When people choose between alternatives that vary on a number of attributes, an early preference for one alternative can lead to the distortion of later information in the direction of the tentative favorite (Brownstein, 2003;DeKay, Patiño-Echeverri, & Fischbeck, 2009b;Holyoak & Simon, 1999;Russo, Medvec, & Meloy, 1996;Russo, Meloy, & Medvec, 1998;Simon, Krawczyk, & Holyoak, 2004;Simon, Pham, Le, & Holyoak, 2001;Simon, Snow, & Read, 2004). This predecisional information distortion occurs in decisions that do not explicitly involve risk (e.g., Russo et al, 1996Russo et al, , 1998Simon, Krawczyk, & Holyoak, 2004) and in those that do (DeKay et al, 2009b;DeKay, Stone, & Miller, 2011;Glöckner & Herbold, 2011;Russo & Yong, 2011). It results from a motivation or unconscious inclination to achieve consistency (Glöckner, Betsch, & Schindler, 2010;Holyoak & Simon, 1999;Russo, Carlson, Meloy, & Yong, 2008;Simon et al, 2001) and mediates the effects of initial preferences on final choices and confidence judgments (DeKay et al, 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Coherence-based models resemble classic cognitive consistency theories, but take a dynamic view in which beliefs, feelings, goals, and actions all influence one another, and are adjusted iteratively toward a point of maximal internal consistency or "coherence" [8]. That is, a coherence perspective depicts people as striving to make sense of information available to them in a way that includes both "rational" bottom-up influences (e.g., adjusting conclusions to fit facts) and less rational top-down ones (e.g., adjusting facts to fit conclusions).…”
Section: Explanatory Coherencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Called predecisional distortion, people tend to bias information to support a developing preference in the process of making a decision (i.e., before a decision is made; Holyoak & Simon, 1999;Russo et al, 1996). As an example, in a choice between two ostensibly equal-quality jobs, decision makers subsequently inflate the importance associated with the positive features of one job (e.g., nice office, short commute) after finding out it is located in a better area (Simon, Krawczyk, & Holyoak, 2004). What is more, in a choice between two restaurants, decision makers evaluate new information (e.g., ambiance, dessert selection) as favoring a leading alternative, despite the information has been pretested to favor neither restaurant .…”
Section: Research On Information Distortion and Self-other Decision Mmentioning
confidence: 99%