Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options.

Subjects screened a set of jobs, retaining those for which they wished to apply and rejecting those that were no longer under consideration. In Experiment 1, subjects who indicated the jobs for which they would apply/not apply screened out fewer jobs than those with instructions to reject/not reject or those with instructions simply to screen (control). There were no differences between the reject and control conditions. Experiment 2 used a design similar to that of Experiment 1, but subjects were made accountable for their screening judgments. The reject-apply discrepancy remained, but the accountability manipulation made the subjects more stringent in their screening compared to those who were not accountable for their judgments. In Experiment 3, subjects were told to consider either the regret resulting from retaining a bad option (regret bad) or the regret from rejecting a good option (regret good). Subjects in the regret bad condition rejected more jobs than did subjects in the regret good condition, but not more than subjects in the control condition. As predicted by image theory, the normal screening process appears to be to screen out the bad options rather than screen in the good options. This is demonstrated by screening in the control condition being similar to screening under the reject instructions (Experiment 1) and under regret bad instructions (Experiment 3), since these conditions were shown to focus attention on the bad options. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

[1]  Joop van der Pligt,et al.  Anticipated regret and time perspective: Changing sexual risk-taking behavior. , 1996 .

[2]  J. Ford,et al.  Forewarning and Accountability , 1981 .

[3]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance , 1992 .

[4]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  Differential versus Unit Weighting of Violations, Framing, and the Role of Probability in Image Theory's Compatibility Test , 1996 .

[5]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  The Effects of Time Constraints on the Prechoice Screening of Decision Options , 1996 .

[6]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  A toadstool among the mushrooms: Screening decisions and image theory's compatibility test , 1989 .

[7]  Itamar Simonson,et al.  Deescalation Strategies: A Comparison of Techniques for Reducing Commitment to Losing Courses of Action , 1992 .

[8]  M. Bar-Hillel,et al.  Why are people reluctant to exchange lottery tickets , 1996 .

[9]  L. Beach Broadening the Definition of Decision Making: The Role of Prechoice Screening of Options , 1993 .

[10]  M. Zeelenberg,et al.  Consequences of Regret Aversion: Effects of Expected Feedback on Risky Decision Making , 1996 .

[11]  Richard E. Potter,et al.  Decision Making When the Acceptable Options Become Unavailable , 1994 .

[12]  David E. Bell,et al.  Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty , 1982, Oper. Res..

[13]  George Cvetkovich,et al.  Cognitive accommodation, language, and social responsibility. , 1978 .

[14]  Elizabeth Weldon,et al.  Cognitive Loafing , 1988, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[15]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Handbook of Social Cognition , 1993 .

[16]  A. Manstead,et al.  Modifying beliefs and attitudes to exceeding the speed limit: An intervention study based on the theory of planned behavior , 1996 .

[17]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret theory and measurable utility , 1983 .

[18]  Daniel W. McAllister,et al.  The Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies: An Empirical Test. , 1978 .

[19]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  American Graffiti: Effects of Authority and Reactance Arousal , 1976 .

[20]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[21]  R. Dawes Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[22]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accounting for the effects of accountability. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  M. Zeelenberg,et al.  Consequences of regret aversion: 2. Additional evidence for effects of feedback on decision making , 1997 .

[24]  I. Simonson,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF ANTICIPATING REGRET AND RESPONSIBILITY ON PURCHASE DECISIONS , 1992 .

[25]  I. Ritov,et al.  Probability of Regret: Anticipation of Uncertainty Resolution in Choice , 1996 .

[26]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Protecting the self from the negative consequences of risky decisions. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  Imperfect Information in Pre-choice Screening of Options , 1994 .

[29]  Hylton Boothroyd Image Theory: Decision Making in Personal and Organizational Contexts. , 1990 .

[30]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.