Previous research shows that people draw finer evaluative distinctions when rating liked versus disliked objects (e.g., wanting a 5-point scale to evaluate liked cuisines and a 3-point scale to rate disliked cuisines). Known as the preference-categorization effect, this pattern may exist not only in how individuals form evaluative distinctions but also in how individuals seek out evaluative information. The current research presents three experiments that examine motivational differences in evaluative information seeking (rating scales and attributes). Experiment 1 found that freedom of choice (the ability to avoid undesirable stimuli) and sensitivity to punishment (as measured by the Behavior Inhibition System/Behavioral Approach System [BIS/BAS] scale) influenced preferences for desirable and undesirable evaluative information in a health-related decision. Experiment 2 examined choice optimization, finding that maximizers prefer finer evaluative information for both liked and disliked options in a consumer task. Experiment 3 found that this pattern generalizes to another type of evaluative categorization, attributes.
AfifiW. A.DillowM. R.MorseC. (2004). Examining predictors and consequences of information seeking in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 429-449.
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
3.
BecharaA.DamasioH.TranelD.DamasioA. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293-1295.
4.
BrewerM. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
5.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6.
CarverC. S. (2003). Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 241-261.
7.
CarverC. S.WhiteT. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.
8.
ChowdhuryT. G.RatneshwarS.MohantyP. (2009). The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers. Marketing Letters, 20, 155-167.
9.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
DamasioA. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
11.
Dar-NimrodI.RawnC. D.LehmanD. R.SchwartzB. (2009). The maximization paradox: The costs of seeking alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 631-635.
12.
DawsonJ. F.RichterA. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917-926.
GarnerW. R. (1960). Rating scales, discriminability, and information transmission. Psychological Review, 67, 343-352.
15.
GomezR.CooperA.GomezA. (2005). An item response theory analysis of the Carver and White (1994) BIS/BAS Scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1093-1103.
16.
GrayJ. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In EysenckH. J. (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246-276). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
17.
GrayJ. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269-288.
18.
HartW.AlbarracinD.EaglyA. H.BrechanI.LindbergM.MerrillM. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588.
19.
HayesA.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press
20.
HayesA. F.MatthesJ. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924-936.
21.
HochS. J.DeightonJ. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing, 52, 1-20.
22.
HofmannW.De HouwerJ.PeruginiM.BaeyensF.CrombezG. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390-421.
23.
IyengarS. S.WellsR. E.SchwartzB. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17, 143-150.
24.
JohnsonP. O.NeymanJ. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
25.
KomoritaS. S.GrahamW. K. (1965). Number of scale points and the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 987-995.
26.
LaiL. (2010). Maximizing without difficulty: A modified maximizing scale and its correlates. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 164-175.
27.
Lefkoff-HagiusR.MasonC. H. (1993). Characteristic, beneficial, and image attributes in consumer judgments of similarity and preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 100-110.
28.
LinvilleP. W.FischerG. W. (1993). Exemplar and abstraction models of perceived group variability and stereotypicality. Social Cognition, 11, 92-125.
29.
LinvilleP. W.JonesE. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703.
30.
MaJ.RoeseN. J. (2014). The maximizing mind-set. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 71-92.
31.
MedinD. L.LynchE. B.ColeyJ. D.AtranS. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome?Cognitive Psychology, 32, 49-96.
32.
MillerS. M. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 345-353.
33.
MillerS. M. (1995). Monitoring versus blunting styles of coping with cancer influence the information patients want and need about their disease: Implications for cancer screening and management. Cancer, 76, 167-177.
34.
MukherjeeA.HoyerW. D. (2001). The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 462-472.
35.
NenkovG. Y.MorrinM.WardA.SchwartzB.HullandJ. (2008). A short form of the maximization scale: Factor structure, reliability and validity studies. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 371-388.
36.
NesdaleD.FlesserD. (2001). Social identity and the development of children’s group attitudes. Child Development, 72, 506-517.
37.
ParkB.JuddC. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173-191.
38.
ParkB.RothbartM. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068.
39.
ParkerA. M.de BruinW.FischhoffB. (2007). Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 342-350.
40.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York, NY: Academic Press.
41.
PolmanE. (2010). Why are maximizers less happy than satisficers? Because they maximize positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 179-190.
42.
QuattroneG. A.JonesE. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141-152.
RubinM.BadeaC. (2012). They’re all the same!. . . but for several different reasons: A review of the multicausal nature of perceived group variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 367-372.
45.
SchwartzB.WardA.MonterossoJ.LyubomirskyS.WhiteK.LehmanD. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178-1197.
46.
ShenL.DillardJ. P. (2007). The influence of behavioral inhibition/approach systems and message framing on the processing of persuasive health messages. Communication Research, 34, 433-467.
47.
SlovicP.PetersE. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 322-325.
48.
SmallmanR.BeckerB.RoeseN. J. (2014). Preferences for expressing preferences: People prefer finer evaluative distinctions for liked than disliked objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 25-31.
49.
SmallmanR.RoeseN. J. (2008). Preference invites categorization. Psychological Science, 19, 1228-1232.
50.
SweenyK.MelnykD.MillerW.ShepperdJ. A. (2010). Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology, 14, 340-353.
51.
ThorndikeE. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 2, 1-109.
52.
TropeY.GerveyB.BolgerN. (2003). The role of perceived control in overcoming defensive self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 407-419.
53.
WeijtersB.CabooterE.SchillewaertN. (2010). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236-247.
54.
WeijtersB.GeuensM.BaumgartnerH. (2013). The effect of familiarity with the response category labels on item response to Likert scales. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 368-381.
55.
WengL. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 956-972.
56.
YeungC. W.WyerR. S. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 412-424.
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.
