Effects of self–other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload.

Abstract

A growing stream of research is investigating how choices people make for themselves are different from choices people make for others. In this paper, I propose that these choices vary according to regulatory focus, such that people who make choices for themselves are prevention focused, whereas people who make choices for others are promotion focused. Drawing on regulatory focus theory, in particular work on errors of omission and commission, I hypothesize that people who make choices for others experience a reversal of the choice overload effect. In 6 studies, including a field study, I found that people who make choices for themselves are less satisfied after selecting among many options compared to few options, yet, people who make choices for others are more satisfied after selecting among many options compared to few options. Implications and suggestions for other differences in self-other decision making are discussed.

You decide, we donate: Strengthening consumer–brand relationships through digitally co-created social responsibility

“…(Study 2), a finding that, in line with recent research (Polman, 2012;Scheibehenne et al, 2009), indicates that choice overload (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000) is less robust and more contextdependent than previously assumed. It also provides empirical evidence for the conceptualization of empowerment being affected less by the number of choice options provided than by the flexibility to define one's choices (Wathieu et al, 2002).…”

“…On the one hand, increasing cause options may produce positive effects by enhancing consumer feelings of decision freedom (Reibstein, Youngblood, & Fromkin, 1975) and satisfaction after selecting from many options when making choices for others (Polman, 2012). On the other hand, increasing cause options may lead to negative effects from trade-off aversion and regret (Chatterjee & Heath, 1996;Hedgcock & Rao, 2009), increased responsibility for poor outcomes (Botti & McGill, 2006), and choice overload (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000).…”

Missing the best opportunity; who can seize the next one? Agents show less inaction inertia than personal decision makers

“…For example, business consultants make decisions on behalf of their clients and doctors make decisions for their patients. The social distance between the decision maker and decision problem is closer in the case of making decisions for oneself than when making decisions for others (Lu, Xie, & Xu, 2013;Polman, 2012a). Therefore, agents who are less close to the problem compared to personal decision makers are expected to focus less on losses and more on gains.…”

Get Excited: Reappraising Pre-performance Anxiety as Excitement

“…I asked participants to read and answer questions about a hypothetical scenario. I manipulated the focal actor in the scenario to test whether individuals' responses would be different for the self versus a coworker (e.g., Polman, 2012) …”