The Impact of Goal Framing on the Choose–Reject Discrepancy

Removing options from a fully loaded model (rejecting) typically leads to a larger final option set than adding options to a base model (choosing), resulting in a choose-reject discrepancy. In two studies, we find that it is possible to take advantage of information processing differences in choosing versus rejecting to modify the finding that rejecting options from a fully-loaded model leads to more options in the final option set compared to adding options to a base model.



Citation:

Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy and Anish Nagpal (2008) ,"The Impact of Goal Framing on the Choose–Reject Discrepancy", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 35, eds. Angela Y. Lee and Dilip Soman, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 784-785.

Authors

Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy, University of Houston
Anish Nagpal, University of Melbourne, Australia



Volume

NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 35 | 2008



Share Proceeding

Featured papers

See More

Featured

Consuming Products with Experiences: Why and When Consumers Want Mementos

Charlene Chu, Chapman University
Suzanne Shu, University of California Los Angeles, USA

Read More

Featured

K6. Persuading the Moral Consumer: Matching Messages to Attitude Basis

Aviva Philipp-Muller, Ohio State University, USA
Andrew Luttrell, Ball State University
Richard Petty, Ohio State University, USA

Read More

Featured

Does It Pay to Be Virtuous? Examining Whether and Why Firms Benefit From Their CSR Initiatives

Dionne A Nickerson, Georgia Tech, USA
Michael Lowe, Georgia Tech, USA
Adithya Pattabhiramaiah, Georgia Tech, USA

Read More

Engage with Us

Becoming an Association for Consumer Research member is simple. Membership in ACR is relatively inexpensive, but brings significant benefits to its members.