Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status quo.

The present research contrasts two seemingly complementary decision strategies: acceptance and elimination. In acceptance, a choice set is created by including suitable alternatives from an initial set of alternatives, whereas in elimination it is created by removing inappropriate alternatives from that same initial set. The research used realistic career decision-making scenarios and presented to respondents sets of alternatives that varied in their preexperimental strength values. Whereas complementarity of acceptance and elimination is implied by three standard (normative) assumptions of decision theory, we find a systematic discrepancy between the outcomes of these procedures: choice sets were larger in elimination than in acceptance. This acceptance-elimination discrepancy is directly tied to subcomplementarity. The central tenet of the theoretical framework developed here is that acceptance and elimination procedures imply different types of status quo for the alternatives, thereby invoking a different selection criterion for each procedure. A central prediction of the dual-criterion framework is that middling alternatives should be most susceptible to the type of procedure used. The present studies focus on this prediction which is substantiated by the results showing that middling alternatives yield the greatest discrepancy between acceptance and elimination. The implications of this model and findings for various research domains are discussed. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

[1]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[2]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  J. Baron,et al.  Omission and commission in judgment and choice , 1991 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Psychology of Preferences , 1982 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[6]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[7]  E. Higgins,et al.  Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations : Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making , 1997 .

[8]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Individual decision making under uncertainty , 1988 .

[9]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Not Forbidding Isn't Allowing: The Cognitive Basis of the Forbid-Allow Asymmetry , 1986 .

[10]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Response Mode, Framing and Information-processing Effects in Risk Assessment , 1988 .

[11]  Donald D. Rugg,et al.  EXPERIMENTS IN WORDING QUESTIONS: II , 1941 .

[12]  S. Presser,et al.  Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context , 1996 .

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

[14]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[15]  Gregory B. Northcraft,et al.  Decision bias and personnel selection strategies , 1987 .

[16]  E. Higgins.  Beyond pleasure and pain. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[17]  I. Gati,et al.  Gender Differences in Career Decision Making: The Content and Structure of Preferences. , 1995 .

[18]  Yaacov Schul,et al.  The influence of quantity of information and goal framing on decision , 1995 .

[19]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Games And Decisions , 1958 .

[20]  Yaacov Schul,et al.  Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. , 1997 .

[21]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Insights in decision making : a tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn , 1990 .

[22]  J. Baron,et al.  Status-quo and omission biases , 1992 .

[23]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[24]  Thomas Gilovich,et al.  Commission, Omission, and Dissonance Reduction: Coping with Regret in the "Monty Hall" Problem , 1995 .

[25]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making , 1998 .

[26]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[27]  Mirjam R. M. Westenberg,et al.  Response modes, decision processes and decision outcomes , 1992 .

[28]  Itamar Gati.  Computer-Assisted Career Counseling: Dilemmas, Problems, and Possible Solutions. , 1994 .

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

[30]  A. Tversky,et al.  Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. , 1990 .

[31]  Lyle Brenner,et al.  Focus, repacking, and the judgment of grouped hypotheses , 1999 .

[32]  I. Gati,et al.  An Aspect-Based Approach to Person-Environment Fit: A Comparison between the Aspect Structure Derived from Characteristics of Occupations and that Derived from Counselees' Preferences. , 1998 .

[33]  THE STRUCTURE OF VOCATIONAL INTERESTS , 1991 .

[34]  Nona Tollefson,et al.  The Impact of Alternative Scoring Procedures for Multiple-Choice Items on Test Reliability, Validity, and Grading , 1988 .