When perfectionism leads to imperfect consumer choices: The role of dichotomous thinking

He, Xin

doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.04.002

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We demonstrate that encouraging maximizers to focus on processes rather than outcomes can alter their preferences. Other methods of thinking, such as dichotomous thinking (He, 2016) and analytical thinking (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001), might also affect maximizers' decisions. In addition, future research might test how maximizers respond when encouraged to use other decision-making strategies, such as attribute-based versus alternative-based (Mourali & Pons, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

Hsieh

Yalch

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how maximizers make decisions when they must trade‐off between desirability and feasibility attributes. Across four studies, we demonstrate that maximizers tend to prefer choices offering more desirability to those offering more feasibility and respond more favorably to a product's advertising when it highlights desirability more than feasibility attributes. Furthermore, we show that maximizers' focus on outcomes rather than processes drives their preference for desirability, such that changing from an outcome to a process focus can redirect their interest from desirability to feasibility. By contrast, satisficers do not prefer products higher in desirability to those higher in feasibility and are not more receptive to ads highlighting desirability attributes. Furthermore, because satisficers may focus on both the outcome and the process, priming either one is redundant and does not alter their preference for desirability or feasibility.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

Hsieh

Yalch

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In clinical psychology, dichotomous thinking has been linked to perfectionism (Egan et al 2007) and increased emotional reactions to the self and others (Epstein and Meier 1989). Perfectionists tend to engage in dichotomous thinking, which leads to underperformance in consumer decision-making tasks because they prematurely abandon problems with no single, ideal answer (He 2016). These individual differences may also influence the degree to which people exhibit the binary bias.…”

Section: Marketing Implications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing Stars: How the Binary Bias Distorts the Interpretation of Customer Ratings

Fisher

Newman

Dhar

2018

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across many different contexts, individuals consult customer ratings to inform their purchase decisions. The present studies document a novel phenomenon, dubbed "the binary bias," which plays an important role in how individuals evaluate customer reviews. Our main proposal is that people tend to make a categorical distinction between positive ratings (e.g., 4s and 5s) and negative ratings (e.g., 1s and 2s). However, within those bins, people do not sufficiently distinguish between more extreme values (5s and 1s) and less extreme values (4s and 2s). As a result, people's subjective representations of distributions are heavily impacted by the extent to which those distributions are imbalanced (having more 4s and 5s vs. more 1s and 2s). Ten studies demonstrate that this effect has important consequences for people's product evaluations and purchase decisions. Additionally, we show this effect is not driven by the salience of particular bars, unrealistic distributions, certain statistical properties of a distribution, or diminishing subjective utility. Furthermore, we demonstrate this phenomenon's relevance to other domains besides product reviews, and discuss the implications for existing research on how people integrate conflicting evidence.

show abstract

“…Egan et al 2007), depression (Teasdale et al 2001), entity (i.e. "fixed" rather than malleable) theories of human ability (Oshio 2012) and the abandonment of tasks in the face of difficulty (He 2016). Dichotomous present-focused evaluation might therefore exacerbate the negative effect of CUP on IE and, therefore, CTI.…”

Section: Dichotomous Present-focused Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of current unsatisfactory performance and evaluative approach on improvement expectancy and commitment to improvement

Abdulla

Woods

2021

Motiv Emot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effects of current unsatisfactory performance (CUP) on improvement expectancy (IE) and commitment to improvement (CTI). 118 high school students were randomly assigned to consider either current satisfactory performance (CSP) or CUP. In addition, students within each group were randomly assigned to one of two evaluative approaches: (1) dichotomous present-focused evaluation (“Are you succeeding in this area? Or not?”), or (2) historical success scaling (“What is the highest level of success that you have reached in this area?”). It was hypothesised that (relative to CSP) CUP has a negative effect on improvement expectancy (IE). This hypothesis was supported. In addition, the data were consistent with an inconsistent mediation hypothesis according to which CUP has a positive direct effect on CTI but a negative indirect effect through reduced IE. The indirect effect of CUP on CTI was expected to be less negative amongst students engaging in historical success scaling than amongst students engaging in dichotomous present-focused evaluation. Although this was indeed the case, a test of moderated mediation indicated that the conditional indirect effects did not differ statistically. The study helps to illuminate the conflicting effects of CUP on CTI. Findings also have important implications for cognitive-behavioural and solution-focused approaches, both of which champion “scaling.”

show abstract

When perfectionism leads to imperfect consumer choices: The role of dichotomous thinking

Cited by 15 publications

References 34 publications

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

Seeing Stars: How the Binary Bias Distorts the Interpretation of Customer Ratings

The effects of current unsatisfactory performance and evaluative approach on improvement expectancy and commitment to improvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About