Neural mechanisms of selective exposure: An EEG study on the processing of decision-consistent and inconsistent information

Fischer, Peter; Reinweber, Matthias; Vogrincic, Claudia; Schäfer, Axel; Schienle, Anne; Volberg, Gregor

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.10.011

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Items were collapsed into a single scale of epistemic motivation (α = 0.73). Participants’ involvement in the decision was measured with six questions (e.g., “How much do you identify with the decision?”) and collapsed into a single scale of involvement (α = 0.73, see also Fischer et al, 2013 ). Perceived decision difficulty was measured with a single-item ( “Working on the task was difficult to me” ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Too Much and Not Too Little: Information Processing for a Good Purchase Decision

Vogrincic-Haselbacher

Krueger

Lurger

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When deciding on an online purchase, consumers often face a plethora of information. Yet, individuals consumers differ greatly in the amount of information they are willing and able to acquire and process before making purchasing decisions. Extensively processing all available information does not necessarily promote good decisions. Instead, the empirical evidence suggests that reviewing too much information or too many choice alternatives can impair decision quality. Using simulated contract conclusion scenarios, we identify distinctive types of information processing styles and find that certain search and selection strategies predict the quality of the final choice. Participants (N = 363) chose a cellular service contract in a web-based environment that closely resembled actual online settings in the country of study. Using information processing data obtained with tracking software, we identify three consumer segments differing along two dimensions – the extent dimension, referring to the overall effort invested in information processing, and the focus dimension, referring to the degree to which someone focuses on the best available options. The three subgroups of respondents can be characterized as follows: (1) consumers with a low-effort and low-focus information processing strategy (n = 137); (2) consumers with a moderate-effort and high-focus information processing strategy (n = 124); and (3) consumers with high-effort and low-focus information processing strategy (n = 102). The three groups differed not only in their information processing but also in the quality of their decisions. In line with the assumption of ecological rationality, most successful search strategies were not exhaustive, but instead involved the focused selection and processing of a medium amount of information. Implications for effective consumer information are provided.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Too Much and Not Too Little: Information Processing for a Good Purchase Decision

Vogrincic-Haselbacher

Krueger

Lurger

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies are grounded either in a demonstrative experiment [27], or a regular experimental study [21]. In addition to this perspective, there are also research works based on empirical studies from the fields of cognitive science or psychology [28][29][30][31][32]. Nevertheless, published manuscripts are neither directed at individuals and their multi-criteria decision making peculiarities, nor do they utilise available numerical measures enabling if not cardinal, then at least ordinal comparison.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Criteria Selection Method on Consistency of Pairwise Comparison

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The more criteria a human decision involves, the more inconsistent the decision. This study experimentally examines the effect on the degree of pairwise comparison inconsistency by using the (im)possibility of selecting the criteria for the evaluation and the size of the decision-making problem. A total of 358 participants completed objective and subjective tasks. While the former was associated with one possible correct solution, there was no single correct solution for the latter. The design of the experiment enabled the acquisition of eight groups in which the degree of inconsistency was quantified using three inconsistency indices (the Consistency Index, the Consistency Ratio and the Euclidean distance) and these were analysed by the repeated measures ANOVA. The results show a significant dependence of the degree of inconsistency on the method of determining the criteria for pairwise evaluation. If participants are randomly given the criteria, then with more criteria, the overall inconsistency of the comparison decreases. If the participants can themselves choose the criteria for the comparison, then with more criteria, the overall inconsistency of the comparison increases. This statistical dependence exists only for males. For females, the dependence is the opposite, but it is not statistically significant.

show abstract

“…Second, there are some research works based on empirical studies dealing with investigation of the phenomenon of inconsistency in human manifestation from the psychological point of view [31–35]. The issue is that these works are not focused on the multicriteria decision making of individuals and they do not make use of a numerical measure that allows ordinal or even cardinal comparison.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of trial repetition and problem size on the consistency of decision making

Bureš¹,

Ponce²,

Čech³

et al. 2019

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human decision making involving many alternatives is encumbered with inconsistent prioritization. Although inconsistency is assumed to grow with the number of comparisons, it is shown to be reduced by conscious awareness under certain conditions. This study experimentally investigated the effect of repeating a criteria ranking task on inconsistency scores as measured by four different inconsistency coefficients. A total of 107 participants were engaged in a selection task that comprised of ranking from 3 to 10 criteria and was repeated in three trials. Upon completing the first trial, the participants were informed about the inconsistency issues and could improve their ranking in another two trials. The inconsistency score was computed for each set of comparisons and the effect of repeating the selection task on inconsistency concerning the number of criteria was analyzed using the repeated measures ANOVA. The results reveal a significant change in the inconsistency as the task was repeated but the difference depended on the number of criteria. There exists a borderline in the problem size under which the rankings are associated with significantly lower inconsistency, while the rankings with the larger number of criteria were found to have significantly higher inconsistency.

show abstract

Neural mechanisms of selective exposure: An EEG study on the processing of decision-consistent and inconsistent information

Cited by 5 publications

References 25 publications

Not Too Much and Not Too Little: Information Processing for a Good Purchase Decision

Not Too Much and Not Too Little: Information Processing for a Good Purchase Decision

The Influence of Criteria Selection Method on Consistency of Pairwise Comparison

The effect of trial repetition and problem size on the consistency of decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About