How to choose among presidential candidates you don't particularly like

January 23, 2008

This election season, we’re finding out that some choices are indeed tougher than others. Say you’re a die-hard Kucinich supporter or a Republican but now find yourself for practical reasons having to choose between Hillary and Obama. A new study from the February issue of the Journal of Consumer Research reveals that sometimes asking people to “reject” an option – rather than “choose” an option – makes it easier for consumers to decide among options that they don’t particularly like.

“If both the alternatives are attractive, then both provide reasons to choose, and therefore are compatible with the choose task,” explain Anish Nagpal (University of Melbourne) and Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy (University of Houston). “If both the alternatives are unattractive, neither one provides reasons to choose, and are therefore incompatible with the choose task.”

Thus, if a choice is difficult, it might not be the options that are causing the indecisiveness, but the way the decision is framed. The researchers argue that it is difficult to choose among undesirable options because none of the items offers a reason to choose it.

Indeed, asking people to choose among undesirable things leads to greater experienced conflict and greater decision difficulty, which may manifest as longer decision times. The researchers show that people tend to have an easier time choosing among things they like than among things they hate. In one study, choices were made almost 20 percent quicker between desirable alternatives (an average of 70.09 seconds) than between undesirable alternatives (an average of 86.93 seconds).

The reverse was true when consumers were asked to reject an option. Decisions involving unattractive alternatives were more than 20 percent quicker (an average of 69.50 seconds) than attractive alternatives (an average of 88.57 seconds) when consumers were asked to “reject” – as opposed to “choose” – an unappealing option.

“This suggests that consumers can control the level of difficulty that they experience by changing their decision task,” the researchers write, pointing out that consumers faced with a difficult choice have been known to give up and defer the decision to a later date.

Source: University of Chicago

Explore further: Forest plantations are a potent blend for coffee production

Related Stories

Financial motives drive some doctors' decisions to offer IVF

November 2, 2017

Around one in 25 Australian babies are conceived using assisted reproductive technologies (ART), including in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). These interventions are almost all offered in private fertility clinics, backed by a ...

Choosing colorful, healthy foods

October 13, 2017

Dear Mayo Clinic: I notice a lot of food products, including cereals, no longer use artificial colors. Is this because food dyes are harmful?

Recommended for you

Plague likely a Stone Age arrival to central Europe

November 22, 2017

A team of researchers led by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History has sequenced the first six European genomes of the plague-causing bacterium Yersinia pestis dating from the Late Neolithic ...

How to cut your lawn for grasshoppers

November 22, 2017

Picture a grasshopper landing randomly on a lawn of fixed area. If it then jumps a certain distance in a random direction, what shape should the lawn be to maximise the chance that the grasshopper stays on the lawn after ...

Ancient barley took high road to China

November 21, 2017

First domesticated 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, wheat and barley took vastly different routes to China, with barley switching from a winter to both a winter and summer crop during a thousand-year ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.