Rejecting options from large and small choice sets: the mediating role of confidence

Chan, E; Wang, Y

Rejecting options from large and small choice sets: the mediating role of confidence

Chan, E

Wang, Y

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: European Journal of Marketing, 2018, 52 (9-10), pp. 1845 - 1863
Issue Date:: 2018-09-10

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	EJM-03-2017-0192.pdf	Published Version	279.17 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Chan, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6847-6545	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wang, Y https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3040-7755	en_US
dc.date.available	2018-05-26	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-09-10	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	European Journal of Marketing, 2018, 52 (9-10), pp. 1845 - 1863	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0309-0566	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/130419
dc.description.abstract	© 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited. Purpose: Literature on choice has predominantly focused on selection decisions rather than rejection decisions. Research on rejection decisions has also only studied rejecting one option from two alternatives. This research aims to study the differences in decision confidence and satisfaction in rejection decisions between choice sets of small and large sizes. Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted three behavioral experiments in which they first tested the overall effect (Experiment 1) and then found out whether regulatory focus (Experiment 2) and the attractiveness of options (Experiment 3) moderated it. Findings: The authors observed that decision satisfaction increased when rejecting larger (vs smaller) choice sets. Decision confidence mediated it (Experiment 1). The effect was strongest when participants had a prevention focus (Experiment 2) and when they were rejecting relatively unattractive options (Experiment 3). Research limitations/implications: This research expands the understanding of how individuals make rejection-based decisions and in particular how individuals make choices for one option out of many as in the selection-based choice overload literature. Practical implications: The authors show how choice sets of varying sizes affect rejection decisions commonly faced by managers and consumers. This research provides implications for improving confidence and satisfaction, both of which are important elements of everyday decision-making, by suggesting that choice outcomes may differ depending on whether one is making a selection or a rejection decision and whether the choice set size is small or large. Originality/value: This is the first study to examine rejection decisions with more than two alternatives. The findings complement the large body of work on the choice overload effect that focuses on selection decisions.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	European Journal of Marketing	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0192	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Marketing	en_US
dc.title	Rejecting options from large and small choice sets: the mediating role of confidence	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	9-10	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	52	en_US
utslib.for	1505 Marketing	en_US
utslib.for	15 Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Marketing Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	9-10	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	52	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018, Emerald Publishing Limited. Purpose: Literature on choice has predominantly focused on selection decisions rather than rejection decisions. Research on rejection decisions has also only studied rejecting one option from two alternatives. This research aims to study the differences in decision confidence and satisfaction in rejection decisions between choice sets of small and large sizes. Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted three behavioral experiments in which they first tested the overall effect (Experiment 1) and then found out whether regulatory focus (Experiment 2) and the attractiveness of options (Experiment 3) moderated it. Findings: The authors observed that decision satisfaction increased when rejecting larger (vs smaller) choice sets. Decision confidence mediated it (Experiment 1). The effect was strongest when participants had a prevention focus (Experiment 2) and when they were rejecting relatively unattractive options (Experiment 3). Research limitations/implications: This research expands the understanding of how individuals make rejection-based decisions and in particular how individuals make choices for one option out of many as in the selection-based choice overload literature. Practical implications: The authors show how choice sets of varying sizes affect rejection decisions commonly faced by managers and consumers. This research provides implications for improving confidence and satisfaction, both of which are important elements of everyday decision-making, by suggesting that choice outcomes may differ depending on whether one is making a selection or a rejection decision and whether the choice set size is small or large. Originality/value: This is the first study to examine rejection decisions with more than two alternatives. The findings complement the large body of work on the choice overload effect that focuses on selection decisions.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/130419