What to Say When: Influencing Consumer Choice by Delaying the Presentation of Favorable Information

Ge, Xin; Häubl, Gerald; Elrod, Terry

doi:10.1086/661937

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, prior work on two-stage decisions has largely concentrated on decision scenarios with explicit attribute descriptions (e.g., Beach, 1993, Chakravarti et al, 2006, Ge et al, 2012. Finally, like Study 3B, it showed that the key effect sustains even when the choice set does not include dominated options.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…In comparison, past work has only shown how two-stage decision-making affects information processing, such as relatively lesser weighting of (i) information presented in the first stage (Chakravarti et al, 2006, Ge et al, 2012, or (ii) attributes that have been used in the first stage (Larson & Hamilton, 2012). Past work has not, to the best of our knowledge, found any effects that differ by the type of attributes (e.g., hedonic vs. utilitarian) considered during decision making.…”

Section: Theoretical Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…According to this past work, in the final stage of two-stage decisions, decision-makers de-emphasize information that they used in the first stage and place greater importance on information that they encountered in the second stage (Chakravarti, Janiszewski, & Ülkümen, 2006;Ge, Häubl, & Elrod, 2012). The research presented in this manuscript differs from this previous research in two ways.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…We anticipated that participants would eventually choose one of the two superior, "target" candidates (A and C), thus reducing the potential variance during the final choice stage. Further, to induce a hedonic-utilitarian tradeoff, candidate A was designed to have greater hedonic characteristics than candidate C. We imposed a specific number of candidates in the initial choice set (four) and the shortlisted set (two), in keeping with past work on shortlisting that also involved similar numbers of options (e.g., Ge et al 2012, Experiment 1). In all pretests and studies, we counterbalanced descriptions and labels (and by extension, order of options).…”

Section: Study 1: Candidate Hiringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This domain is appropriate for our investigation, because apartment decisions have been studied in the research on two-stage decisions (Ge et al, 2012). Moreover, past research on hedonic-utilitarian tradeoffs has also studied apartment choices (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000), and in general, apartment choices are highly involving.…”

Section: Study 2: Apartment Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options

Bhargave

Chakravarti

Guha

2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When choosing from multiple options, decision-makers may directly choose an option (single-stage decision), or initially shortlist a subset of options, and then choose an option from this shortlist (two-stage decision). Past work suggests that these two decision formats should lead to the same final choice when information about the choice alternatives is held constant. In contrast, this research demonstrates a novel effect: two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic (vs. utilitarian) options. A regulatory focus account explains this effect. In a two-stage process, after shortlisting, decision-makers feel that they have sufficiently advanced their prevention goals, and this reduces their prevention focus during the final choice stage. Reduced prevention focus, in turn, enhances hedonic preference. Four studies across different decision contexts illustrate this effect and support the underlying process mechanism. The findings suggest that the formal structure of a decision (single-stage vs. two-stage) leads to systematic differences in decision-makers’ choices

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Theoretical Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 72%

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Study 1: Candidate Hiringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study 2: Apartment Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options

Bhargave

Chakravarti

Guha

2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Love Leads to Action: Short‐Term Mating Mindset Mitigates the Status‐Quo Bias by Enhancing Promotion Focus

Cunha²

2020

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We demonstrate that short-term mating (STM) mindsets lead individuals to a preference for action over inaction, thus violating the status-quo bias. We hypothesize, and provide supporting evidence through five experiments, that STM enhances one's promotion focus, which increases one's approaching tendencies and leads to the preference for actions against the status quo of affairs. This effect emerges independently of intrinsic product characteristics, such as the risk associated with gambling and investment decisions, and the signaling value of fashionable apparel. We also demonstrate that, for the STM mindset's effect on action-against-statusquo behavior to take place, individuals must construe choice sets in the light of default vs. non-default options, rather than mere side-by-side comparisons. Accordingly, upselling tactics and opt-in offers might be effective implementations of the findings of this research.

show abstract

Reliance on Numerical Precision: Compatibility between Accuracy versus Efficiency Goals and Numerical Precision Level Influence Attribute Weighting in Two‐Stage Decisions

Pena‐Marin

Yan

2020

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how the weighting of an attribute is jointly affected by attribute precision and decision stage. Building on prior work suggesting (a) that less (more) precise numerical values are easier to process (more accurate), (b) that decision‐makers' motivation to be efficient (accurate) is greater when creating a consideration set (making a final choice), and (c) that decision‐makers tend to overweight information that is compatible with their goals, we hypothesize that when creating a consideration set (making a choice) participants tend to assign greater weight to less (more) precise attributes. Five studies (two of them reported in the Appendix S1) offer triangulating evidence for these predictions. Overall, this work contributes to research on numerical cognition, efficiency versus accuracy trade‐offs, attribute weighting, and two‐stage decisions.

show abstract

What to Say When: Influencing Consumer Choice by Delaying the Presentation of Favorable Information

Cited by 24 publications

References 56 publications

Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options

Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options

Love Leads to Action: Short‐Term Mating Mindset Mitigates the Status‐Quo Bias by Enhancing Promotion Focus

Reliance on Numerical Precision: Compatibility between Accuracy versus Efficiency Goals and Numerical Precision Level Influence Attribute Weighting in Two‐Stage Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About