This research examines the influence of regulatory focus on preference formation for sequentially presented choice alternatives. Across three experiments, we demonstrate the “holding-out” effect exhibited by prevention-focused individuals who tend to undervalue earlier options in a sequence, examine more options, and select an option encountered later in a sequence compared to promotion-focused individuals. We suggest and provide initial evidence that the mechanism underlying the holding-out effect is an inability to externally generate a comparison point in the beginning of a sequence, which negatively affects evaluations made by prevention-focused individuals.
AvnetT.HigginsE. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 1–10.
2.
AvnetT.LauferD.HigginsE. T. (2013). Are all experiences of fit created equal? Two paths to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 301–316.
3.
BoseM.FolseJ. A. G.BurtonS. (2013). The role of contextual factors in eliciting creativity: Primes, cognitive load and expectation of performance feedback. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30, 400–414.
4.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
5.
CroweE.HigginsE. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.
6.
CummingG. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.
7.
DroletA.LuceM. F. (2004). The rationalizing effects of cognitive load on emotion-based trade-off avoidance. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 63–77.
FergusonT. S. (1989). Who solved the secretary problem?Statistical Science, 4, 282–296.
10.
FörsterJ.HigginsE. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–636.
11.
FreitasA. L.HigginsE. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1–6.
12.
FreitasA. L.LibermanN.HigginsE. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 291–298.
13.
FriedmanR. S.FörsterJ. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.
14.
GilbertJ. P.MostellerF. (1966). Recognizing the maximum of a sequence. Journal of American Statistical Association, 61, 35–73.
15.
GriffinJ.BroniarczykS. (2010). The slippery slope: The impact of feature alignability on search and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 323–334.
16.
HigginsE. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
17.
HigginsE. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.
18.
HigginsE. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision-making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 177–191.
19.
HigginsE. TFriedmanR. S.HarlowR. E.IdsonL. C.AydukO. N.TaylorA. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23.
20.
HseeC. K.LeclercF. (1998). Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together?Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 175–186.
21.
KirmaniA.ZhuR. J. (2007). Vigilant against manipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 688–701.
22.
KramerT.YoonS. (2007). Approach-avoidance motivation and the use of affect as information. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 128–138.
23.
LeeA. Y.AakerJ. L.GardnerW. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134.
24.
MantonakisA.RoderoR.LesschaeveI.HastieR. (2009). Order in choice effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20, 1309–1312.
25.
MogilnerC.ShivB.IyengarS. S. (2013). Eternal quest for the best: Sequential (vs. simultaneous) option presentation undermines choice commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 1300–1312.
26.
PhamM. T.AvnetT. (2004). Ideals and oughts and reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 503–518.
27.
PhamM. T.ChangH. H. (2010). Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and consideration of choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 626–640.
28.
QiuC.YeungC. W. M. (2008). Mood and comparative judgment: Does mood influence everything and finally nothing?Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 657–669.
29.
SamuelsS. (1991). Secretary problems. In GhoshB. K.SenP. K. (Eds.), Handbook of sequential analysis (pp. 381–405). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
30.
SealeD. A.RapoportR. (1997). Sequential decision-making with relative ranks: An experimental investigation of the secretary problem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 221–236.
31.
SeminG.HigginsE. T.Gil de MontesL.EstourgetY.ValenciaJ. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36–45.
32.
ShivB.HuberJ. (2000). The impact of anticipating satisfaction on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 202–216.
33.
ShuS. (2008). Future-biased search: The quest for the ideal. Journal of Behavioral Decision-Making, 21, 352–377.
34.
VazireS. (2016). Editorial. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 3–7.
35.
WanE. W.HongJ.SternthalB. (2009). The effect of regulatory orientation and decisions on brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 1026–1038.
36.
WangJ.LeeA. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 28–38.
37.
WardA.MannT. (2000). Don’t mind if I do: Disinhibited eating under cognitive load. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78, 753–763.
38.
ZhuR. J.Meyers-LevyJ. (2007). Exploring the cognitive mechanism that underlies regulatory focus effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 89–96.
