Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel like Losing

Carmon, Ziv; Wertenbroch, Klaus; Zeelenberg, Marcel

doi:10.1086/374701

Cited by 285 publications

(216 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

202

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We assumed that there is no self-object connection for buyers; therefore there is no consequent self-threat to buyers. However, as shown in prior research (e.g., Carmon et al 2003), buyers may also form self-object associations if they contemplate buying and using the object (see Irmak, Wakslak, and Trope [2013] for a similar argument). As a result, they may also experience self-threat; however, the extent of such threat is likely to be significantly lower than what sellers experience (unless buyers already own a similar or identical product as in the owner-buyer condition created by Morewedge et al [2009]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat

Chatterjee

Irmak²,

Rose

2013

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat

Chatterjee

Irmak²,

Rose

2013

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Is not most of the research we do (or publish) highlighting an influence that was not obvious to us as consumer researchers at the outset, and therefore probably even less transparent to consumers? Consumers are likely not aware of how the decision context affects their choices (Simonson 1989), of how mood influences their reasoning (Labroo and Patrick 2009), or of how merely deliberating an option already increases loss aversion (Carmon, Wertenbroch, and Zeelenberg 2003). Or consider some of the endocrinological research highlighted by WP, for example, the finding that consumers' risk-taking can be predicted by their prenatal testosterone levels (Stenstrom et al 2011).…”

Section: Confusing Distal With Proximal Causes or Unconscious Influenmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Study Consciousness in Consumer Research, A Commentary on Williams and Poehlman

Sweldens

Tuk

Hütter

2017

Journal of Consumer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumer research can benefit greatly from more insight in unconscious processes underlying behavior. Williams and Poehlman's effort at more clearly conceptualizing consciousness and call for more research provides a welcome stimulus in this regard. At the same time, providing evidence for unconscious causation is fraught with methodological difficulties. We outline why it is vital to uphold standards of evidence for claims regarding unconscious processes, as it is precisely a lack of rigor on this front which has generated a countermovement by researchers sceptical of dual process models in general and unconscious processes in particular. We contend that the sceptics have offered valid causes for concern, which we leverage to formulate six concrete recommendations for future research on consciousness. Researchers should (1) specify the process level at which they claim evidence for unconscious processes, (2) not confuse unconscious influences with unconscious processes, (3) carefully choose between different operational definitions of awareness, (4) maximally satisfy four criteria for awareness measures, and (5) complement measurement with experimental manipulations of awareness. Finally, we recommend to (6) refrain from hard claims about unconscious causation that transcend the limitations of the evidence, recognizing that consciousness is a continuous construct. Author NoteSteven Sweldens is associate professor of marketing at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands (sweldens@rsm.nl) and distinguished research fellow at INSEAD. Mirjam A. Tuk is assistant professor of marketing at Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, UK (m.tuk@imperial.ac.uk) and visiting professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. Mandy Hütter is junior professor of social psychology at the Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Fachbereich Psychologie, Schleichstr. 4, 72076 Tübingen, Germany (mandy.huetter@uni-tuebingen.de). 2To better understand, aid and protect consumers, it is imperative to have an accurate understanding of unconscious drivers of behavior. We therefore welcome Williams and Poehlman's (2016) effort to stimulate and more clearly conceptualize the study of consciousness in consumer research. Past research on consciousness has struggled with two major stumbling blocks. First, it is difficult to provide an accurate definition of consciousness, not least because we do not really know how the experience of consciousness originates. As a consequence, there has been much variation in how conscious versus unconscious processing have been defined and operationalized in past research. We believe Williams and Poehlman (WP) have made important progress here by restricting the definition of consciousness to awareness, highlighting its functions and distinguishing it from other features of automaticity. Second, even when researchers agree on a definition (e.g., "awareness"),...

show abstract

“…However, empirical evidence suggests that in many choice settings, individual preferences are subject to influence by a wide variety of psychological factors, such as an individual's attachment to different choice options arising from the trading institution (Carmon et al 2003), induced negative emotion (Lerner et al 2004), salience of certain decision factors such as costs or benefits (Bordalo et al 2012), and other framing effects. These factors are typically not modeled in deriving the indirect utility functions in (1) and (2), but including them can potentially lead to divergence between CV and EV.…”

Section: Context-dependent and Endogenous Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence Through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy

Kim¹,

Kling

Zhao³

2015

Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The often observed empirical divergence between WTA and WTP measures of welfare change continues to be a topic of interest to both theoretical and applied economists. The divergence has particularly important implications for environmental policy. In this paper, we review behavioral and other explanations of the disparity with a focus on their connections to neoclassical welfare theory, and evaluate the empirical evidence of these explanations through the same lens. Some explanations of the disparity are consistent with neoclassical models and some are not. Likewise, some imply that the divergences are attributed to underlying preferences (neoclassical or not) while others suggest the divergences are due to elicitation methods, cognitive limitations, or other non-preference related reasons. We argue that the source of the divergence can inform the choice of which measure, WTP or WTA, to use in a given empirical application.

show abstract

Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel like Losing

Cited by 285 publications

References 36 publications

The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat

The Endowment Effect as Self-Enhancement in Response to Threat

How to Study Consciousness in Consumer Research, A Commentary on Williams and Poehlman

Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence Through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About