Comparison Effects on Preference Construction

Consumers frequently compare alternatives to make similarity and preference judgments. Recent research suggests that the construction of both similarity and preference judgments can be captured by a feature-matching model that allows for shifts in the relative weights assigned to the various features of the alternatives being compared. An implication of this model is that engaging in one comparative process (e.g., similarity) can influence the relative weight assigned to the features that are considered in a second comparative judgment (e.g., preference). Our main proposition that the type and direction of the initial comparison process has a systematic effect on subsequent preference judgments and choice was tested in a series of studies. One study, which focused on alternatives about which consumers have information in memory, shows that the direction of an initial comparison task that elicits differences between two options systematically alters their relative attractiveness in a subsequent preference task. In two subsequent studies, the effect of engaging in an initial comparison task on subsequent preference judgments was tested for stimulus-based choice sets. The results on choice deferral and choice satisfaction were consistent with the notion that engaging in similarity/dissimilarity comparisons altered the relative weight assigned to common and unique features for the two alternatives. Mouselab was used to support the decision mechanisms underlying the effect of the initial similarity/dissimilarity judgments. An additional study examined how the effect of adding common features on subsequent preference was also contingent on the initial comparison task. We conclude with a study involving real consequences and a discussion of the theoretical and practical goals of our findings. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.

[1]  F. Kardes,et al.  The Role of Direction of Comparison, Attribute-Based Processing, and Attitude-Based Processing in Consumer Preference , 1999 .

[2]  Alexander Chernev The Effect of Common Features on Brand Choice: Moderating Role of Attribute Importance , 1997 .

[3]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[4]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[5]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Accessibility of interrelational constructs: Implications for stimulus encoding and creativity. , 1980 .

[6]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Similarity in Context: Cognitive Representation and Violation of Preference and Perceptual Invariance in Consumer Choice☆ , 1996 .

[7]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral , 1999 .

[8]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  Lyle Brenner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article COMPARISON, GROUPING, AND PREFERENCE , 2022 .

[10]  K. A. Morris,et al.  When comparisons arise. , 1995 .

[11]  Charlotte H. Mason,et al.  Characteristic, Beneficial, and Image Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference , 1993 .

[12]  John W. Payne,et al.  Monitoring Information Processing and Decisions: The Mouselab System , 1989 .

[13]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together? , 1998 .

[14]  Steven Jay Lynn,et al.  Contrast effects and their relationship to subsequent behavior , 1978 .

[15]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction , 1991 .

[16]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of the Focus of Comparison on Consumer Preferences , 1992 .

[17]  Robert J. Meyer,et al.  Context-Induced Parameter Instability in a Disaggregate-Stochastic Model of Store Choice , 1982 .

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

[19]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice , 1996 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Weighting common and distinctive features in perceptual and conceptual judgments , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  I. Simonson,et al.  Attribute–Task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals: , 1997 .

[22]  Sankar Sen Knowledge, Information Mode, and the Attraction Effect , 1998 .

[23]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Cancellation and focus: the role of shared and unique features in the choice process , 1995 .

[24]  Bryan Gibson,et al.  The role of attribute knowledge and overall evaluations in comparative judgment , 1991 .

[25]  D. Dunning,et al.  Mental addition versus subtraction in counterfactual reasoning: on assessing the impact of personal actions and life events. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice , 2000 .

[27]  B. Mellers,et al.  Similarity and Choice. , 1994 .

[28]  R. Dhar Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

[29]  Frank R. Kardes,et al.  Effects of Initial Product Judgments on Subsequent Memory-Based Judgments , 1986 .

[30]  Rashi Glazer Multiattribute Perceptual Bias as Revealing of Preference Structure , 1984 .

[31]  S. Ratneshwar,et al.  The Use of Comparative Advertising for Brand Positioning: Association versus Differentiation , 1991 .

[32]  The coincidence effect in similarity and choice , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[33]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Comparison and Choice: Relations between Similarity Processes and Decision Processes , 1995 .

[34]  F. Kardes,et al.  Direction of comparison, expected feature correlation, and the set-size effect in preference judgment , 1993 .

[35]  Murat R. Sertel,et al.  Comparison and choice , 1982 .

[36]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[37]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.