The Impact of Goal Framing on the Choose-Reject Discrepancy

Abstract

Consumers often make decisions about options that go with a base product configuration, such as deciding whether to purchase “wireless card ” connectivity when buying a computer. In this regard, researchers have examined whether the task of adding options to a base model (choosing) versus removing options from a fully loaded model (rejecting) affects the composition of the final configuration (Levin, et al. 2002; Park, Jun, and MacInnis 2000). Research suggests that choosing versus rejecting, i.e., task framing, is of consequence; choosing typically results in a smaller final configuration than rejecting (Huber, Neale, and Northcraft 1987; Park, et al. 2000; Yaniv and Schul 1997). We refer to this as the choose–reject discrepancy (CRD). In this research, we argue that it is possible to take advantage of the information processing differences between choosing and rejecting to modify/reverse the CRD; sometimes, choosing options

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.