选择与拒绝:决策模式对后续优先选择的影响

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Sangsuk Yoon, Vinod Venkatraman
{"title":"选择与拒绝:决策模式对后续优先选择的影响","authors":"Sangsuk Yoon,&nbsp;Vinod Venkatraman","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>People often make decisions by either choosing an alternative they like (<i>choose</i> mode) or rejecting alternatives they dislike (<i>reject</i> mode). Previous research has demonstrated that these two decision modes involve distinct cognitive processes. In the current work, we further investigate whether these distinct cognitive processes in these two decision modes symmetrically or asymmetrically impact people's subsequent preferences for their preferred (chosen or nonrejected) alternatives. Across three experiments involving consumer goods, we found that participants exhibited stronger preferences for items preferred through the <i>choose</i> mode compared with items preferred through the <i>reject</i> mode. Using eye tracking, we demonstrate that this effect can be explained by more selective visual attention directed toward task-compatible alternatives in choosing versus rejecting decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice in the context of consumer preferences, as well as their extensions to other decision domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70032","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing Versus Rejecting: The Effect of Decision Mode on Subsequent Preferential Choices\",\"authors\":\"Sangsuk Yoon,&nbsp;Vinod Venkatraman\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.70032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>People often make decisions by either choosing an alternative they like (<i>choose</i> mode) or rejecting alternatives they dislike (<i>reject</i> mode). Previous research has demonstrated that these two decision modes involve distinct cognitive processes. In the current work, we further investigate whether these distinct cognitive processes in these two decision modes symmetrically or asymmetrically impact people's subsequent preferences for their preferred (chosen or nonrejected) alternatives. Across three experiments involving consumer goods, we found that participants exhibited stronger preferences for items preferred through the <i>choose</i> mode compared with items preferred through the <i>reject</i> mode. Using eye tracking, we demonstrate that this effect can be explained by more selective visual attention directed toward task-compatible alternatives in choosing versus rejecting decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice in the context of consumer preferences, as well as their extensions to other decision domains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"38 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70032\",\"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.70032\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70032","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

摘要

人们通常通过选择他们喜欢的选择(选择模式)或拒绝他们不喜欢的选择(拒绝模式)来做决定。先前的研究表明,这两种决策模式涉及不同的认知过程。在当前的工作中,我们进一步研究了这两种决策模式下的不同认知过程是否对称或不对称地影响人们对其首选(已选择或未拒绝)替代方案的后续偏好。在三个涉及消费品的实验中,我们发现参与者对通过选择模式偏爱的物品比通过拒绝模式偏爱的物品表现出更强的偏好。通过眼动追踪,我们证明了这种效应可以解释为在选择和拒绝决策时,更多的选择性视觉注意力指向任务兼容的替代方案。我们讨论了我们的发现在消费者偏好的背景下对理论和实践的影响,以及它们对其他决策领域的扩展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Choosing Versus Rejecting: The Effect of Decision Mode on Subsequent Preferential Choices

Choosing Versus Rejecting: The Effect of Decision Mode on Subsequent Preferential Choices

People often make decisions by either choosing an alternative they like (choose mode) or rejecting alternatives they dislike (reject mode). Previous research has demonstrated that these two decision modes involve distinct cognitive processes. In the current work, we further investigate whether these distinct cognitive processes in these two decision modes symmetrically or asymmetrically impact people's subsequent preferences for their preferred (chosen or nonrejected) alternatives. Across three experiments involving consumer goods, we found that participants exhibited stronger preferences for items preferred through the choose mode compared with items preferred through the reject mode. Using eye tracking, we demonstrate that this effect can be explained by more selective visual attention directed toward task-compatible alternatives in choosing versus rejecting decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice in the context of consumer preferences, as well as their extensions to other decision domains.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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