Consumers frequently engage in sequential decisions. This article explores whether the order of these decisions can influence the manner in which consumers search through the possible choice options. Results from five studies suggest that ordering decisions by increasing (vs. decreasing) choice-set size leads to greater search depth (measured by both sampling count and decision time). Initial, smaller choice sets in increasing sequences appear to initiate a maximizing mind-set, which then persists even as participants encounter later, larger choice sets. These participants report a greater desire to maximize and are less satisfied with their decisions, consistent with research on chronic maximizers. In addition, they continue to exhibit maximizing behavior in subsequent, unrelated tasks, supporting a mind-set account of the differences in search. In sum, decision makers are proposed to be "sticky adapters": initial decision strategies seem to constrain the extent to which they adapt to new contexts.

Consumers frequently engage in sequential decisions. This article explores whether the order of these decisions can influence the manner in which consumers search through the possible choice options. Results from five studies suggest that ordering decisions by increasing (vs. decreasing) choice-set size leads to greater search depth (measured by both sampling count and decision time). Initial, smaller choice sets in increasing sequences appear to initiate a maximizing mind-set, which then persists even as participants encounter later, larger choice sets. These participants report a greater desire to maximize and are less satisfied with their decisions, consistent with research on chronic maximizers. In addition, they continue to exhibit maximizing behavior in subsequent, unrelated tasks, supporting a mind-set account of the differences in search. In sum, decision makers are proposed to be "sticky adapters": initial decision strategies seem to constrain the extent to which they adapt to new contexts.Watch out for the fellow who talks about putting things in order! Putting things in order always means getting other people under your control. (Denis Diderot) C onsumers frequently engage in sequential decisions.For instance, grocery store shoppers fill their shopping baskets one item at a time, restaurant diners order their meal one course at a time, and computer buyers configure their laptops one component at a time. Each decision in the sequence might require choosing from a different number of options. Imagine that a homeowner who renovates her apartment engages in a sequence of decision steps: she might have to choose between 50 different tiles, 20 different wallJonathan Levav (jlevav@stanford.edu) is associate professor of marketing at the Graduate paint colors, and five different wallpaper designs. In this article, we explore how ordering decision sequences by choice-set size (i.e., ordering decisions according to their number of options) influences the depth of consumer search.Order is important in many contexts, from impression formation (Asch 1946) to judgments of hedonic experiences (Ariely and Zauberman 2000). However, previous research about order in consumer search has limited its focus to the effect of ordering options within a specific choice set (e.g., Dellaert and Häubl 2012;Dellaert and Stremersch 2005;Diehl 2005;Diehl, Kornish, and Lynch 2003;Häubl, Dellaert, and Donkers 2010). The influence of decision order on search has, to our knowledge, remained unexplored.Although there are many psychologically meaningful variables by which to order a decision sequence, we focus on order by choice-set size for two key reasons. First, set size can be objectively determined, and therefore it is an easy variable for firms to control. Second, and more importantly, previous research shows that set size can exert a substantial influence on consumers' psychology and consequently on their decisions. For example, large choice sets can demotivate purchases (Iyengar and Lepper 2000) or lead to decision simplification (I...

We test the mnemonic benefit of having a mind that distracts itself with unresolved matters. In 5 studies, conducted in quasi-naturalistic settings, using both self-reported and experience-sampled measures of intention-related intrusions, we establish the reminding value entailed in mindwandering. Study 1 verifies that the mind is more likely to wander toward intentions outstanding rather than intentions bygone and provides preliminary evidence that more frequent intention-related intrusions lead to greater success at realizing the intention. Studies 2–5 replicate the self-reminding effect of mindwandering. Studies 2–4 examine whether committing to an intention in a setting replete with distinctive versus banal contextual details increases the number of retrieval pathways down which the mind can wander to the intention, and thus the likelihood that the intention is retrieved in both inopportune (mindwandering) and opportune (enactment) moments. Study 5 reveals that enriched details of the commitment moment can increase the likelihood that the delayed goal will be enacted, even when the details are self-generated.

This article emphasizes the role of categorization in mental accounting and proposes that once a mental account is established, purchases that are highly congruent with the purpose of the mental account (i.e., typical category members) will be more preferred in selection decisions compared to purchases that are less congruent (i.e., atypical category members). This hypothesis is tested in the context of gift cards. Six studies find that people shopping with a retailer-specific gift card-and so, the authors argue, possessing a retailer-specific mental accountexpress an increased preference for products more typical of the retailer compared to those shopping with more fungible currency. This pattern is found to occur for both well-known retailers, where people already possess product-typicality knowledge, and fictional retailers, where product-typicality cues are provided. An alternative account based on semantic priming is not supported by these data. These results both broaden the contemporary understanding of how mental accounting influences preferences and provide retailers deeper insight into their customers' decision processes.Keywords: mental accounting, categorization, gift cards, mental representation M ental accounting is a framework for understanding how people label and track their money (Thaler 1985(Thaler , 1999. The present work examines the role of mental accounting in product selection decisions, arguing that the formation of a mental account can predictably change preferences for one type of product over another. Specifically, purchases most congruent with the purpose of the mental account will become more preferred. Further, congruency with the mental account can be assessed using established principles of categorization and mental representation.Our research focuses on a common situation where new mental accounts are likely to arise-the acquisition of gift cards. We argue that acquiring a gift card from a retailer (hereafter, a "retailer-specific" gift card) creates a goal to purchase from that retailer. From this premise, we build on research that argues mental accounts are formed around goals (Brendl, Markman, and Higgins 1998). Thus receiving a retail-specific gift card should trigger the intent to spend it and initiate a corresponding mental account to monitor transactions in service of this spending goal.Nicholas Reinholtz (nicholas.s.reinholtz@colorado.edu) is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Colorado Boulder, Leeds School of Business, S442 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309. Daniel M. Bartels (bartels@uchicago.edu) is an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Chicago, 5807 S. Woodlawn Ave., Chicago, IL 60637. Jeffrey R. Parker (jeffparker@gsu.edu) is an assistant professor of marketing at Georgia State University, PO Box 3991, Atlanta, GA 30302. The authors thank Charlene Chen, Don Lehmann, Jonathan Levav, Malia Mason, Oleg Urminsky, Liad Weiss, Lawrence Williams, George Wu and his lab group, participants in a University of Colorado seminar, and members of hocag ...

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, data regarding new infections were commonly presented and used to guide policy decisions (e.g., whether to close schools) and personal choices (e.g., whether to dine at a restaurant). In this manuscript, we highlight a critical aspect of pandemic data that can pose a challenge for people trying to reason about it. Data on infections-like much time series data-can be presented as either stocks (the total number of cases) or flows (the number of new cases over some interval). We show that seeing the same data presented in one format versus the other can shift judgments of risk and behavioral intentions. Specifically, when participants were shown data that depicted the number of new cases each day (flow) decreasing, they judged the current risk of COVID-19 to be lower than participants who were shown the same data as the total (cumulative) number of cases (stock), whichby its nature-continued to increase. Risk appraisal, in turn, predicted a wide array of behavioral intentions (e.g., likelihood of dining indoors at a restaurant). Thus, the choice of how to present pandemic data can lead people to different conclusions about risk and can have practical consequences for risky behavior. Public Significance StatementSeemingly minor visualization choices regarding how to present pandemic data can affect the public's judgments of risk and corresponding behavioral intentions. When the number of new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases is in a period of day-to-day decline, people judge the risk of COVID-19 to be greater when shown the data as cumulative totals (over time) compared to when the same data are presented as number of new cases (over time).