A great deal of research in consumer decision making and social cognition has explored consumers’ attempts to simplify choices by bolstering their tentative choice candidate and/or denigrating the other alternatives. The current research investigates a diametrically opposed process, whereby consumers complicate their decisions. The authors demonstrate that to complicate their choices, consumers increase choice conflict by overweighting small disadvantages of superior alternatives, converging overall evaluations of alternatives, reversing preference ordering, and even choosing less preferred alternatives. Furthermore, the results from five studies support a unifying theoretical framework: the effort–compatibility principle. Specifically, the authors argue that consumers strive for compatibility between the effort they anticipate and the effort that they actually exert. When a decision seems more difficult than initially expected, a simplifying process ensues. However, when the decision seems easier to resolve than anticipated (e.g., when consumers face an important yet easy choice), consumers artificially increase their effort.
BarkerRoger, G., (1942), “An Experimental Study of the Resolution of Conflict by Children: Time Elapsing and Amount of Vicarious Trial-and-Error Behavior Occurring,” in Studies in Personality, McNemarQ., and MerrillM.A., eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, 13–34.
ChatterjeeSubimal, and HeathTimothy B., (1996), “Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of TradeOff Size and Reference States on Decision Difficulty,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(August), 144–55.
4.
ChernevAlexander, and CarpenterGregory S., (2001), “The Role of Market Efficiency Intuitions in Consumer Choice: A Case of Compensatory Inferences,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38(August), 349–61.
5.
DijksterhuisAp, (2004), “Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586–98.
6.
FestingerLeon, (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
FitzsimonsGavan, J., (2008), “Death to Dichotomizing,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5–8.
8.
GreenleafEric A., and LehmannDonald R., (1995), “Reasons for Substantial Delay in Consumer Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Research, 22(September), 186–99.
9.
GriceHerbert, P., (1975), “Logic and Conversation,” in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, ColeP., and MorganJ.L., eds. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.
10.
HutchinsonWesley J., KamakuraWagner A., and LynchJohn G.Jr., (2000), “Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for ‘Reversal’ Effects in Behavioral Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 324–44.
11.
JanisIrving L., and MannLeon, (1977), Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment.New York: The Free Press.
12.
JeckerJ.D., (1964), “The Cognitive Effects of Conflict and Dissonance,” in Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance, FestingerLeon, ed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 21–32.
13.
JohnsonMichel, D., (1984), “Consumer Choice Strategies for Comparing Noncomparable Alternatives,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(December), 741–53.
14.
KeppelGeoffrey, and WickensThomas D., (2004), Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
15.
KivetzRan, and SimonsonItamar, (2000), “The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 37(November), 427–48.
16.
KivetzRan, and ZhengYuhuang, (2006), “Determinants of Justification and Self-Control,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(November), 572–87.
17.
ArieW. Kruglanski, (1990), “Lay Epistemic Theory in Social-Cognitive Psychology,”Psychological Inquiry, 1(3), 181–97.
18.
ArieW. Kruglanski, and FreundTallie, (1983), “The Freezing and Unfreezing of Lay-Inferences: Effects on Impressional Primacy, Ethnic Stereotyping, and Numerical Anchoring,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(September), 448–68.
19.
KundaZiva, (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,”Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–98.
20.
LabrooAparna A., and KimSara, (2009), “The Instrumentality Heuristic: Why Metacognitive Difficulty Is Desirable During Goal Pursuit,”Psychological Science, 20(1), 127–34.
21.
LernerJenifer S., and TetlockPhilip E., (1999), “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability,”Psychological Bulletin, 125(March), 255–75.
22.
LiuWendy, and SimonsonItamar, (2009), “The Tradeoff Heuristic: The Settling Effect of Conflict,” working paper, Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles.
23.
LordCharles G., RossLee, and LepperMark R., (1979), “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.
24.
MannLeon, JanisIrving L., and ChaplinRuth, (1969), “Effects of Anticipation of Forthcoming Information on Predecisional Processes,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(1), 10–16.
25.
MannLeon, and TaylorValerie A., (1970), “The Effects of Commitment and Choice Difficulty on Predecision Processes,”Journal of Social Psychology, 82(2), 221–30.
26.
MillerNeal, E., (1944), “Experimental Studies of Conflict,” in Personality and the Behavior Disorders, HuntJ.M., ed. New York: Ronald Press, 431–65.
27.
MillsJudson, (1968), “Interest in Supporting and Discrepant Information,” in Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Source Book, AbelsonR.P., AronsonE., McGuireW.J., NewcombT.M., RosenbergM.J., and TannenbaumP.H., eds. Chicago: Rand McNally, 771–76.
28.
MontgomeryHenry, (1983), “Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Towards a Process Model of Decision Making,” in Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes, HumphreysP., SvensonO., and VariA., eds. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 343–69.
29.
NovemskyNathan, DharRavi, SchwarzNorbert, and SimonsonItamar, (2007), “Preference Fluency in Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 44(August), 347–56.
30.
PayneJohn W., BettmanJames R., and JohnsonEric J., (1988), “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(July), 534–52.
31.
PayneJohn W., SamperAdriana, BettmanJames R., and LuceMary Frances, (2008), “Boundary Conditions on Unconscious Thought in Complex Decision Making,”Psychological Science, 19(11), 1118–23.
32.
PrelecDrazen, WernerfeltBirger, and ZettelmeyerFlorian, (1997), “The Role of Inference in Context Effects: Inferring What You Want from What Is Available,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24(June), 118–25.
33.
PyszczynskiTom, and GreenbergJeff, (1987), “Toward an Integration of Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives on Social Inference: A Biased Hypothesis-Testing Model,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, BerkowitzL, ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 297–340.
34.
RussoEdward J., MedvecVictoria H., and MeloyMargret G., (1996), “The Distortion of Information During Decisions,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 102–110.
35.
RussoEdward J., MeloyMargret G., and WilksJeffrey T., (2000), “Predecisional Distortion of Information by Auditors and Salespersons,”Management Science, 46(1), 13–27.
36.
SchwarzNorbert, (2004), “Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–48.
37.
SimonHerbert, A., (1957), Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
38.
SvensonOla, (1992), “Differentiation and Consolidation Theory of Human Decision Making: A Frame of Reference for the Study of Pre- and Postdecision Processes,”Acta Psychologica, 80(1/3), 143–68.
39.
TetlockPhilip, E., (1985), “Accountability: A Social Check on the Fundamental Attribution Error,”Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227–36.
40.
TyebjeeTyzoon, T., (1979), “Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 6(3), 295–304.
41.
TyszkaTadeusz, (1998), “Two Pairs of Conflicting Motives in Decision Making,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(3), 189–211.
42.
WilsonTimothy D., and SchoolerJonathan W., (1991), “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 181–92.
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.
