The Compromise Effect in Choosing for Others

Abstract

Most research into the compromise effect focuses on cognitive factors related to choosing for oneself. However, there are daily opportunities to make choices for others, from helping friends to buy merchandise to choosing souvenirs for relatives. Although it is a common practice, choosing for others is rarely discussed in the literature. Hence, this research is directed to determine whether (i) the compromise effect is greater for people choosing for others with whom one has a distant relationship compared to choosing for themselves, (ii) the decision maker's susceptibility to interpersonal relationships, accountability, and anticipated regret moderate the relationship between choosing for others versus choosing for themselves and the compromise effect, and (iii) the confidence of the decision maker mediates the relationship between deciding for others and the compromise effect. Five hypotheses are proposed and they are supported by the results from four experiments.

My Mug Is Valuable, But My Partner's Is Even More So: Economic Decisions for Close Others

“…Furthermore, it suggests that close others may be seen as closer to the self than a distant other. Further evidence for this can be seen in that participants show a more pronounced compromise effect for distant than close others (Chang, Chuang, Cheng, & Huang, 2012;Chuang, Cheng, & Hsu, 2012). Thus, when making a decision for another, the relative closeness of the person being thought of matters.…”

When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies

“…Maximizing also correlated with several other dependent measures, but none of them affected preferences for a compromise option (cf. Chang et al, 2012 andSimonson, 1989).…”

“…Consumers seem to have a good sense of what others would choose (Hamilton, 2003), and their own choices often match closely with their predicted preferences of an extremeness–averse consumer (Chernev, 2004; also see Chang et al, 2012). Results from Study 4, however, suggest an exception: people intuit fewer compromise choices for a maximizer, who—probably due to the prototypical image of seeking perfection—should prefer an extreme option, which at least has an unequivocally best value for a single dimension.…”

“…There is a large literature on moderators of the compromise effect, particularly those related to product features (e.g., Ha, Park, & Ahn, 2009;Sinn, Milberg, Epstein, & Goodstein, 2007), motivational factors (e.g., Chang, Chuang, Cheng, & Huang, 2012;Mourali, Bockenholt, & Laroche, 2007), and (to a limited extent) individual differences (Drolet, Luce, & Simonson, 2009;Simonson & Nowlis, 2000). Despite the proliferation of this research, however, there still lacks a consensus among researchers regarding what motivates the consumer to choose a compromise option in the first place (Sheng et al, 2005;Simonson, 1999).…”

The Research Review and Prospect of Compromise Effect

“…Selection usually involves two kinds of uncertainty, one is the uncertainty of the consequences of the current decision, and the other is the uncertainty of the future preference for these consequences (Simonson, 1989). An effective way for consumers to resolve these uncertainties related to decision-making is to choose a compromise option (Chang et al, 2012). Because the compromise option can minimize the maximum possible errors, it is the safest option (Simonson, 1989).…”