Complicating Choice

Abstract

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.

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 — 48 citations exist upstream.

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