.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
This study deals with the issues of how money reminders would influence choice results and of whether the effect might be diluted in accountability or justifiability contexts. In particular, we focus on compromise and attraction effects due to a compromise alternative and an asymmetrically dominating alternative, respectively. The results show that the money prime decreases the compromise effect but enhances the attraction effect. We infer that these results occur in high level construals induced by money-related thoughts. Further, we find that the effects of the money prime are diluted in the accountability condition in which social factors are more important. We discuss both theoretical and practical implications of the results.
Aaker, J., Rudd, M., & Mogilner, C. (2011). “If money doesn't make you happy, consider time,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), 126-130.
Conlon, E. J., & Wolf, G. (1980). The moderating effects of strategy, visibility, and involvement on allocation behavior: An extension of Staw's escalation paradigm. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26(2), 172-192.
Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(2), 230-256.
Dhar, R., & Gorlin, M. (2013). A dual-system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 528-542.
Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96-100.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146-160.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709.
Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 477.
Furnham, A., Wilson, E., & Telford, K. (2012). The meaning of money: The validation of a short money-types measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 707-711.
Green, M. C., Visser, P. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Coping with accountability crosspressures:Low-effort evasive tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1380-1391.
Hansen, J., Kutzner, F., & Wänke, M. (2013). Money and thinking: Reminders of money trigger abstract construal and shape consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1154-1166.
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives:Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
Jensen, M. (2006). Should we stay or should we go? Accountability, status anxiety, and client defections. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 97-128.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality:Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263-291.
Khan, U., Zhu, M., & Kalra, A. (2011). When trade-offs matter: The effect of choice construal on context effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 62-71.
Kivetz, R., Netzer, O., & Srinivasan, V. (2004). Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237-257.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Bridging Individual, Interpersonal, and Institutional Approaches to Judgment and Decision Making: The Impact of Accountability on Cognitive Bias (pp. 431-457). Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, S. E., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(2), 161-175.
Liu, J. E., Smeesters, D., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Reminders of money elicit feelings of threat and reactance in response to social influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1030-1046.
Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33(2), 223-252.
Mourali, M., Böckenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 234-247.
Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference fluency in choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347-356.
Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344-355.
Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 133-168.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins &A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:Handbook of basic principles (pp.433-465). New York: Guilford.
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1), 11-36.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49-68.
Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 419.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281-295.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 227-236.
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(3), 331-76.
Tetlock, P. E., & Mellers, B. A. (2011). Structuring accountability systems in organizations: Key trade-offs and critical unknowns. Committee on Behavioral and Social Science Research to Improve Intelligence Analysis for National Security (Eds.), Intelligence Analysis:Behavioral and Social Scientific Foundations, 249-270.
Tetlock, P. E., Vieider, F. M., Patil, S. V., & Grant, A. M. (2013). Accountability and ideology: When left looks right and right looks left. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 22-35.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of money. Science, 314(5802), 1154-1156.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2008). Merely activating the concept of money changes personal and interpersonal behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 208-212.
Zhou, X., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). The symbolic power of money reminders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science, 20(6), 700-706.