Interpersonal Effects of Using Selection or Elimination: People Are Less Willing to Interact With Elimination Strategy Users Than With Selection Strategy Users

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Ruobing Fu, Jingyi Lu
{"title":"Interpersonal Effects of Using Selection or Elimination: People Are Less Willing to Interact With Elimination Strategy Users Than With Selection Strategy Users","authors":"Ruobing Fu,&nbsp;Jingyi Lu","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Decision makers employ either a selection strategy to choose desirable options or an elimination strategy to remove undesirable options. While previous research has revealed how these two strategies influence decision processes and outcomes, the interpersonal influences remain understudied. This research fills this gap by documenting that people are less willing to interact with decision makers who use an elimination (vs. selection) strategy due to the belief that elimination (vs. selection) strategy users are more critical. However, the interpersonal cost of using an elimination strategy is mitigated when negative decisions are made to identify the worst option, when negative feedback is desired, and when decision makers are forced to use the strategy. Our research contributes to the literature on decision strategy by revealing the social effect of selection and elimination, and to the literature on choice perception by showing that decision strategy shapes the way people view decision makers.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decision makers employ either a selection strategy to choose desirable options or an elimination strategy to remove undesirable options. While previous research has revealed how these two strategies influence decision processes and outcomes, the interpersonal influences remain understudied. This research fills this gap by documenting that people are less willing to interact with decision makers who use an elimination (vs. selection) strategy due to the belief that elimination (vs. selection) strategy users are more critical. However, the interpersonal cost of using an elimination strategy is mitigated when negative decisions are made to identify the worst option, when negative feedback is desired, and when decision makers are forced to use the strategy. Our research contributes to the literature on decision strategy by revealing the social effect of selection and elimination, and to the literature on choice perception by showing that decision strategy shapes the way people view decision makers.

选择或淘汰的人际效应:人们与淘汰策略使用者的互动意愿低于选择策略使用者
决策者要么采用选择策略来选择理想的选项,要么采用消除策略来消除不理想的选项。虽然之前的研究已经揭示了这两种策略如何影响决策过程和结果,但人际关系的影响仍未得到充分研究。这项研究填补了这一空白,它记录了人们不太愿意与使用淘汰(vs.选择)策略的决策者互动,因为人们相信淘汰(vs.选择)策略的用户更挑剔。然而,当为了确定最坏的选择而做出负面决定时,当需要负面反馈时,当决策者被迫使用该策略时,使用消除策略的人际成本就会减轻。我们的研究通过揭示选择和淘汰的社会效应,为决策策略的文献做出了贡献;通过表明决策策略塑造了人们看待决策者的方式,为选择感知的文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书