Effects of choice task on attribute memory

Abstract Winnowing process models of multiattribute choice in which alternatives are successively eliminated in stages based on partial information predict differential memory for minor attributes as a function of an alternative's relative desirability. This prediction, which differs from the results of judgment studies finding little or no relationship between evaluation and memory, was tested in two experiments in which the choice task (Choose 1 vs Choose 3) and the density of the option set were varied. Better memory for minor attributes of relatively desirable alternatives was observed for those conditions requiring the more difficult decisions, namely the Choose 1 task with a dense set of good alternatives. A third experiment replicated these results and demonstrated that the minor attributes did influence choice. The results of all three experiments are generally consistent with winnowing models. However, detailed analysis of the memory data revealed that only attributes of the chosen alternative were remembered better; this is not entirely consistent with those models. Implications of these results for models of memory and choice are discussed.

[1]  P. Wason.  On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task , 1960 .

[2]  William Revelle,et al.  Individual differences in the use of simplification strategies in a complex decision-making task. , 1985 .

[3]  A. Tversky.  Choice by elimination , 1972 .

[4]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation , 1963 .

[5]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  A theoretical analysis of insight into a reasoning task , 1970 .

[6]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Product familiarity and learning new information , 1984 .

[7]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  The independence of evaluative and item information: Impression and recall order effects in behavior-based impression formation. , 1979 .

[8]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[9]  L E Bourne,et al.  Learning conceptual rules. II. The role of positive and negative instances. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  Gabriel J. Biehal,et al.  Information-Presentation Format and Learning Goals as Determinants of Consumers' Memory Retrieval and Choice Processes , 1982 .

[11]  J. Bettman,et al.  Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis , 1980 .

[12]  A. Tversky.  Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[13]  R. Hastie,et al.  The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line , 1986 .

[14]  R. Hogarth,et al.  BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY: PROCESSES OF JUDGMENT AND CHOICE , 1981 .

[15]  Gabriel J. Biehal,et al.  Consumers' Use of Memory and External Information in Choice: Macro and Micro Perspectives , 1986 .

[16]  Dwight R. Riskey,et al.  Verbal memory processes in impression formation. , 1979 .

[17]  Stimulus selection and memory strategies in concept problems , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[18]  Richard W. Olshavsky,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: A replication and extension , 1979 .

[19]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .