Abstract
Students indicated which of two options they would choose or reject in a between-subjects taskframe manipulation. Alternatives had either high or low variability of feature values, corresponding to enriched and impoverished alternatives, respectively. Previous research has yielded mixed results of task framing, with Shafir (1993) demonstrating greater preference for the enriched alternative in choice than rejection but Ganzach (1995) demonstrating the opposite result. An accentuation model explained these differences by postulating that the greater demands for justification in the choice task lead to accentuation of differences between alternatives in choice. The accentuation model was tested against weight-change models in two experiments, one using various decision scenarios and the other using four-trait adjective descriptions of potential roommates. Results were consistent with accentuation theory and inconsistent with a systematic change in weighting of positive and negative attributes across choice and rejection tasks.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, N. H. (1981).Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
Birnbaum, M. H. (1974). The nonadditivity of personality impressions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 543–561.
Eiser, J. R. (1990).Social judgment. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,62, 113–122.
Ganzach, Y., &Schul, T. (1995). The influence of quantity of information and goal framing on decision.Acta Psychologica,89, 23–36.
Goldstein, W. M., &Einhorn, H. J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena.Psychological Review,94, 236–254.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., &Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis.Journal of Consumer Research,9, 90–98.
Judd, C. M., &Harackiewicz, J. M. (1980). Contrast effects in attitude judgment: An examination of the accentuation hypothesis.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,38, 390–398.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica,47, 263–291.
Lambert, A. L., &Wedell, D. H. (1991). The self and social judgment: Effects of affective reaction and “own position” on judgments of unambiguous and ambiguous information about others.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,61, 884–897.
Linville, P. W., &Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of outgroup members.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,38, 689–703.
Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others.Memory & Cognition,21, 546–556.
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., &Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice.Cognition,49, 11–36.
Slovic, P., &Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: A broader perspective.American Economic Review,73, 596–605.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions.Journal of Business,59, 251–278.
Tversky, A., Sattath, S., &Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice.Psychological Review,95, 371–384.
Tversky, A., &Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty.Psychological Science,3, 305–309.
Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 767–778.
Wilkinson, L. (1990).SYSTAT: The system for statistics. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9319520.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wedell, D.H. Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting. Memory & Cognition 25, 873–887 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211332
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211332