Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 93, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 114-128

  Meloy, Margaret G ^a   Russo, J Edward ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management   (United States)

Author keywords

Accentuation; Binary choice; Commitment; Compatibility; Distortion; Flow; Rejection; Selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842479874     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 91-103.
2. Coombs, C. H., Donnell, M. L., & Kirk, D. B. (1978). An experimental study of risk preference in lotteries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 497-512.
3. Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 113-122.
4. Heller, D., Levin, I. P., & Goransson, M. (2002). Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1194-1213.
5. Huber, J., Neale, M., & Northcraft, G. B. (1987). Decision bias and personnel selection strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 136-147.
6. Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 171-193.
7. Levin, I. P., Prosansky, C. M., Heller, D., & Brunick, B. M. (2001). Prescreening of choice options in 'positive' and 'negative' decision-making tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 279-293.
8. Levin, I. P., Jasper, J, D., & Forbes, W. S. (1998). Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 193-210.
9. Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1995). Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 276-286.
10. Meloy, M. G. (2000). Mood-driven distortion of product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 345-359.
11. Miller, N. E. (1944). Experimental studies of conflict. In J. Mcv. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders: A handbook based on experimental and clinical research (pp. 431-465). New York, NY: The Ronald Press Company.
12. Misra, S. (2003). Random cost discrete choice models: Theory and applications. Working Paper, University of Rochester.
13. Ordóñez, L. D., Benson, L., & Beach, L. R. (1999). Testing the compatibility test: How instructions, accountability, and anticipated regret affect prechoice screening of options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 63-80.
14. Russo, J. E., Carlson, K. A., & Meloy, M.G. (2002). The impact of the distortion of information on choice. Working paper, Cornell University.
15. Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., & Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 102-110.
16. Russo, J. E, Meloy, M. G., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The distortion of product information during brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 438-452.
17. Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Wilks, T. J. (2000). Predecisional distortion of information by auditors and salespersons. Management Science, 46, 13-27.
18. Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546-556.
19. Sondak, H., Neale, M. A., & Pinkley, R. (1995). The negotiated allocation of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 249-260.
20. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
21. Wedell, D. H. (1997). Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting. Memory & Cognition, 25, 873-887.
22. Willemsen, M., & Keren, G. (2002). Negative-based prominence: The role of negative features in matching and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 643-666.
23. Yamagishi, K., & Miyamoto, J. M. (1996). Asymmetries in strength of preference: A focus shift model of valence effects in difference judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 493-509.
24. Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (1997). Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 211-220.