Consumers frequently make the same decision repeatedly, by either choosing the products they like more or rejecting the products they like less. Holding everything else constant, does the mere act of choosing versus rejecting influence the extent to which consumers seek variety? Eight studies (N = 2,814) identify a robust effect: Consumers tend to seek less variety across repeated decisions if they make each decision by rejecting than if they make each decision by choosing. This effect occurs because an initial rejection (vs. choice) reduces the liking of the unselected option(s) and thus widens the liking gap between the selected and unselected options. An increased liking gap, in turn, decreases the consumer's likelihood of selecting a previously unselected option(s) in subsequent decisions. The findings also show that the enlarged liking gap is driven by increased negative inferences about the unselected option(s). Theoretically, this research extends the literatures on variety seeking and choosing versus rejecting. Practically, it offers implications for consumer welfare: The rejection task can improve (worsen) the decision quality in situations in which consumers typically seek too much (too little) variety.
AmirOnLevavJonathan (2008), “Choice Construction Versus Preference Construction: The Instability of Preferences Learned in Context,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (2), 145–58.
2.
AndersonNorman H. (1974), “Cognitive Algebra: Integration Theory Applied to Social Attribution,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7, BerkowitzLeonard, ed. Academic Press, 1–101.
BaumeisterRoy F.BratslavskyEllenFinkenauerCatrinVohsKathleen D. (2001), “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” Review of General Psychology, 5 (4), 323–70.
5.
BawaKapil (1990), “Modeling Inertia and Variety Seeking Tendencies in Brand Choice Behavior,” Marketing Science, 9 (3), 263–78.
6.
BeachLee Roy (2016), “Broadening the Definition of Decision Making: The Role of Prechoice Screening of Options,” Psychological Science, 4 (4), 215–20.
7.
BemDaryl J. (1972), “Self-Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, BerkowitzLeonard, ed. Academic Press, 1–62.
8.
CacioppoJohn T.PettyRichard E.KaoChuan Feng (1984), “The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 48 (3), 306–7.
9.
ChandrashekarSubramanya PrasadWeberJasminChanSze YingChoWon YoungChuTsz Ching ConnieChengBo LeyFeldmanGilad (2021), “Accentuation and Compatibility: Replication and Extensions of Shafir (1993) to Rethink Choosing Versus Rejecting Paradigms,” Judgment and Decision Making, 16 (1), 36–56.
10.
ChenM. KeithRisenJane L. (2010), “How Choice Affects and Reflects Preferences: Revisiting the Free-Choice Paradigm,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (4), 573–94.
11.
ChernevAlexander (2009), “Choosing Versus Rejecting: The Impact of Goal-Task Compatibility on Decision Confidence,” Social Cognition, 27 (2), 249–60.
12.
DharRaviWertenbrochKlaus (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60–71.
13.
EtkinJordan (2016), “Choosing Variety for Joint Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (6), 1019–33.
14.
Faraji-RadAliMoeini-JazaniMehradWarlopLuk (2013), “Women Seek More Variety in Rewards When Closer to Ovulation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 503–08.
15.
FazioRussell H.ZannaMark P.CooperJoel (1977), “Dissonance and Self-Perception: An Integrative View of Each Theory’s Proper Domain of Application,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (5), 464–79.
16.
FestingerLeon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
17.
FishburnPeter C. (1974), “Exceptional Paper—Lexicographic Orders, Utilities and Decision Rules: A Survey,” Management Science, 20 (11), 1442–71.
18.
GeXinBrigdenNeilHäublGerald (2015), “The Preference-Signaling Effect of Search,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 245–56.
19.
GoukensCarolineDewitteSiegfriedPandelaereMarioWarlopLuk (2007), “Wanting a Bit(e) of Everything: Extending the Valuation Effect to Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (3), 386–94.
20.
GulloKelleyBergerJonahEtkinJordanBollingerBryan (2019), “Does Time of Day Affect Variety-Seeking?” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (1), 20–35.
21.
HayesAndrew F. (2022), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed.Guilford Press.
22.
HellerDanielLevinIrwin P.GoranssonMartin (2002), “Selection of Strategies for Narrowing Choice Options: Antecedents and Consequences,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89 (2), 1194–213.
23.
HorskyDanMisraSanjogNelsonPaul (2006), “Observed and Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity in Brand-Choice Models,” Marketing Science, 25 (4), 322–35.
24.
HuangZhongqiang (Tak)LiangYitian (Sky)WeinbergCharles B.GornGerald J. (2019), “The Sleepy Consumer and Variety Seeking,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (2), 179–96.
25.
InmanJ. Jeffrey (2001), “The Role of Sensory-Specific Satiety in Attribute-Level Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 105–20.
26.
IrwinJulie R.NaylorRebecca Walker (2009), “Ethical Decisions and Response Mode Compatibility: Weighting of Ethical Attributes in Consideration Sets Formed by Excluding Versus Including Product Alternatives,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (2), 234–46.
27.
KahnBarbara E.IsenAlice M. (1993), “The Influence of Positive Affect on Variety Seeking Among Safe, Enjoyable Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (2), 257–70.
28.
KahnemanDanielKnetschJack L.ThalerRichard H. (1991), “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 193–206.
29.
KahnemanDanielSnellJackie (1992), “Predicting a Changing Taste: Do People Know What They Will Like?” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5 (3), 187–200.
30.
KleinRichard A.VianelloMichelangeloHasselmanFredAdamsByron G.AdamsReginald B.Jr.AlperSinanAveyardMarkAxtJordan R.BabalolaMayowa T.BahníkŠtěpánBatraRishteeBerkicsMihályBernsteinMichael J.BerryDaniel R.BialobrzeskaOlgaBinanEvans DamiBocianKonradBrandtMark J.BuschingRobertCabak RédeiAnna, et al. (2018), “Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings,” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (4), 443–90.
31.
LaranJulianoWilcoxKeith (2011), “Choice, Rejection, and Elaboration on Preference-Inconsistent Alternatives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (2), 229–41.
32.
MaglioSam J.ReichTaly (2019), “Feeling Certain: Gut Choice, the True Self, and Attitude Certainty,” Emotion, 19 (5), 876–88.
33.
MaimaranMichalWheelerS. Christian (2008), “Circles, Squares, and Choice: The Effect of Shape Arrays on Uniqueness and Variety Seeking,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (6), 731–40.
34.
McAlisterLeigh (1982), “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 141–50.
35.
McAlisterLeighPessemierEdgar (1982), “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 311–22.
36.
MenonSatyaKahnBarbara E. (1995), “The Impact of Context on Variety Seeking in Product Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 285–95.
37.
MittelmanMauricioAndradeEduardo B.ChattopadhyayAmitavaBrendlC. Miguel (2014), “The Offer Framing Effect: Choosing Single Versus Bundled Offerings Affects Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 953–64.
38.
MouraliMehdiNagpalAnish (2013), “The Powerful Select, the Powerless Reject: Power’s Influence in Decision Strategies,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 874–80.
39.
NanLana XianglanParkSang KyuYangYang (2023), “Rejections Are More Contagious Than Choices: How Another’s Decisions Shape Our Own,” Journal of Consumer Research, 50 (2), 363–81.
40.
O’KeefeDaniel J.FiggéMarianne (1997), “A Guilt-Based Explanation of the Door-in-the-Face Influence Strategy,” Human Communication Research, 24 (1), 64–81.
41.
OrdóñezLisa D.BensonLehmanBeachLee Roy (1999), “Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78 (1), 63–80.
42.
ParkC. WhanJunSung YoulMacInnisDeborah J. (2000), “Choosing What I Want Versus Rejecting What I Do Not Want: An Application of Decision Framing to Product Option Choice Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (2), 187–202.
43.
ParkerJeffrey R.SchriftRom Y. (2011), “Rejectable Choice Sets: How Seemingly Irrelevant No-Choice Options Affect Consumer Decision Processes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (5), 840–54.
44.
PerfectoHannahGalakJeffSimmonsJoseph P.NelsonLeif D. (2017), “Rejecting a Bad Option Feels Like Choosing a Good One,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113 (5), 659–70.
45.
RatnerRebecca K.KahnBarbara E.KahnemanDaniel (1999), “Choosing Less-Preferred Experiences for the Sake of Variety,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 1–15.
46.
ReadDanielLoewensteinGeorge (1995), “Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy in Variety Seeking Between Combined and Separated Choices,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1 (1), 34–49.
47.
RoehmHarper A.RoehmMichelle L. (2005), “Revisiting the Effect of Positive Mood on Variety Seeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 330–36.
48.
RönkköMikkoChoEunseong (2022), “An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity,” Organizational Research Methods, 25 (1), 6–14.
49.
RozinPaulRoyzmanEdward B. (2001), “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (4), 296–320.
50.
RyanWilliam H.EversEllen R.MooreDon A. (2021), “Poisson Regressions: A Little Fishy,” Collabra: Psychology, 7 (1), 27242.
51.
SelaAnerBergerJonahKimJoshua (2017), “How Self-Control Shapes the Meaning of Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (4), 724–37.
52.
ShafirEldar (1993), “Choosing Versus Rejecting: Why Some Options Are Both Better and Worse Than Others,” Memory & Cognition, 21 (4), 546–56.
53.
SimmonsJoseph P.NelsonLeif D.SimonsohnUri (2011), “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” Psychological Science, 22 (11), 1359–66.
54.
SimmonsJoseph P.NelsonLeif D.SimonsohnUri (2021a), “Pre-Registration: Why and How,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31 (1), 151–62.
55.
SimmonsJoseph P.NelsonLeif D.SimonsohnUri (2021b), “Pre-Registration Is a Game Changer. But, Like Random Assignment, It Is Neither Necessary nor Sufficient for Credible Science,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31 (1), 177–80.
56.
SimonsonItamar (1990), “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (2), 150–62.
57.
SokolovaTatianaKrishnaAradhna (2016), “Take It or Leave It: How Choosing Versus Rejecting Alternatives Affects Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (4), 614–35.
58.
SteffelMaryWilliamsElanor F. (2021), “Do Our Choices Tell Us Who We Are? It Depends on How Easy or Difficult They Were to Make,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31 (4), 784–91.
59.
TverskyAmos (1972), “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,” Psychological Review, 79 (4), 281–99.
60.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211 (4481), 453–58.
61.
WrightPeterBarbourFredrick (1977), “Phased Decision Strategies: Sequels to an Initial Screening,” Working Paper No. 353, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
62.
YanivIlanSchulYaacov (2000), “Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status Quo,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (2), 293–313.
63.
ZhuMengRatnerRebecca K. (2015), “Scarcity Polarizes Preferences: The Impact on Choice among Multiple Items in a Product Class,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 13–26.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
