Abstract
The goal of the present study was to assess the role of information order in situations of complex decision making in which participants have to process a large amount of information (e.g., Dijksterhuis et al. Science 311(5763): 1005–1007, 2006). In two experiments, participants were presented with information about four cars, each characterized by 12 attributes. Immediately following the presentation of the 48 sentences describing these four cars, participants had to choose the one they would prefer to purchase. Two cars shared exactly the same positive and negative attributes, but they were displayed in a different order for each car. For one car, positive attributes were systematically displayed at the beginning while it was the reverse for the other car. The two remaining cars were used as fillers and had a lower number of positive attributes than the target cars in Experiment 1 and a higher number of positive attributes in Experiment 2. Results revealed a massive effect of information order with a clear preference for the car with positive information presented at the beginning. The second experiment further showed that this order effect was maintained and still strong even if the target cars did not have more positive attributes than the filler cars. Interestingly, in both experiments, participants never noticed that two cars were exactly characterized by the same list of attributes. These data clearly demonstrate that information order is a critical factor in complex decision-making situations involving a large amount of information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A simple equation for the non-linear decreasing function could be: \(b\left( t \right) = a \times b\left( {t - 1} \right)\), with 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.
References
Abadie, M., Waroquier, L., & Terrier, P. (2015). Information presentation format moderates the unconscious-thought effect: The role of recollection. Memory,24(8), 1123–1133.
Abadie, M., Waroquier, L., & Terrier, P. (2017). The role of gist and verbatim memory in complex decision making: Explaining the unconscious-thought effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,43, 694–705. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000336.
Acker, F. (2008). New findings on unconscious versus conscious thought in decision making: Additional empirical data and meta-analysis. Judgment and Decision Making,3(4), 292–303.
Ambady, N., & Skowronski, J. J. (Eds.). (2008). First impressions. New York: Guilford Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1965). Primacy effects in personality impression formation using a generalized order effect paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2(1), 1–9.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,41(3), 258–290.
Bröder, A., & Shiffer, S. (2003). Take the best versus simultaneous feature matching: Probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.277.
Chekaf, M., Cowan, N., & Mathy, F. (2016). Chunk formation in immediate memory and how it relates to data compression. Cognition,155, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.024.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation-without- attention effect. Science,311(5763), 1005–1007.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist,49(8), 709–724.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,59, 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
González Vallejo, C., Cheng, J., Phillips, N., Chimeli, J., Bellezza, F., Harman, J., Lassiter, G. D., & Lindberg, M. J. (2014). Early positive information impacts final evaluations: No deliberation-without-attention effect and a test of a dynamic judgment model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,27(3), 209–225.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review,93, 258–268.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology,24(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J.
Huizenga, H., Wetzels, R., van Ravenzwaaij, D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Four empirical tests of unconscious thought theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,117, 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.010.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist,58(9), 697–720.
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: a critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspective on Psychological Science,4(6), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x.
Lange, N. D., Thomas, R. P., Buttaccio, D. R., Illingworth, D. A., & Davelaar, E. J. (2013). Working memory dynamics bias the generation of beliefs: The influence of data presentation rate on hypothesis generation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,20(1), 171–176.
Lassiter, G. D., Lindberg, M. J., González-Vallejo, C., Bellezza, F. S., & Phillips, N. D. (2009). The deliberation-without-attention effect: Evidence for an artifactual interpretation. Psychological Science, 20(6), 671–675.
Mathy, F., & Feldman, J. (2012). What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. Cognition,122, 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.003.
Mehlhorn, K., Taatgen, N. A., Lebiere, C., & Krems, J. F. (2011). Memory activation and the availability of explanations in sequential diagnostic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,37(6), 1391–1411.
Newell, B. R., & Rakow, T. (2011). Revising beliefs about the merit of unconscious thought: evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. Social Cognition,29(6), 711–726. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.6.711.
Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,37, 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12003214.
Newell, B. R., Wong, K. Y., Cheung, J. C., & Rakow, T. (2009). Think, blink or sleep on it? The impact of modes of thought on complex decision making. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62(4), 707–732.
Nieuwenstein, M. R., Wierenga, T., Morey, R. D., Wicherts, J. M., Blom, T. N., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & van Rijn, H. (2015). On making the right choice: A meta-analysis and large-scale replication attempt of the unconscious thought advantage. Judgment and Decision Making,10, 1–17.
Payne, J. W., Samper, A., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. (2008). Boundary conditions on unconscious thought in complex decision making. Psychological Science,19, 1118–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02212.x.
Peterson, C. R., & DuCharme, W. M. (1967). A primacy effect in subjective probability revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology,73(1), 61–65.
Rey, A., Goldstein, R. M., & Perruchet, P. (2009). Does unconscious thought improve complex decision making? Psychological Research,73, 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0156-4.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin,119(1), 3–22.
Sprenger, A., & Dougherty, M. R. (2012). Generating and evaluating options for decision making: The impact of sequentially presented evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,38(3), 550–575.
Strick, M., Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Sjoerdsma, A., van Baaren, R. B., & Nordgren, L. F. (2011). A meta-analysis on unconscious thought effects. Social Cognition,29, 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.6.738.
Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). On the time course of perceptual choice: The leaky competing accumulator model. Psychological Review,108, 550–592.
Waroquier, L., Marchiori, D., Klein, O., & Cleeremans, A. (2009). Methodological pitfalls of the unconscious thought paradigm. Judgment and Decision Making,4(7), 601–610.
Waroquier, L., Marchiori, D., Klein, O., & Cleeremans, A. (2010). Is it better to think unconsciously or to trust your first impression? A reassessment of unconscious thought theory. Social Psychological and Personality Science,1, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609356597.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Aix-Marseille University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arnaud Rey (arnaud.rey@univ-amu.fr), Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, CNRS—Université de Provence, 3 place Victor Hugo, 13331 Marseille cedex 03, France.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
AR, KLG, MA, and PC declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in the present studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: List of the 12 attributes used in Experiment 1. The table represents the distribution of positive and negative attributes across the four different cars and mean scores of influence obtained by each attribute at the end of the experiment. Mean scores of influence obtained by Rey et al. (2009) are also provided
Attributes | Cars | Score (Experiment 1) | Score (Rey et al., 2009) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Car 1 (Best) | Car 2 (Best) | Car 3 | Car 4 | |||
1. (Poor/good) mileage | + | + | − | − | 18.4 | 18.3 |
2. (Poor/good) handling | + | + | − | − | 15.9 | 16.5 |
3. (Poor/good) for the environment | + | + | − | − | 15.4 | 15.6 |
4. (Poor/good) sound system | + | + | − | − | 13.0 | 14.6 |
5. (Poor/good) service | + | + | + | + | 13.0 | 14.3 |
6. (Easy/difficult) to shift gears | + | + | + | − | 16.2 | 12.9 |
7. (Small/large) trunk | + | + | − | + | 12.8 | 12.3 |
8. (Little/plenty of) legroom | − | − | + | + | 10.0 | 11.8 |
9. (Old/new) car | − | − | + | − | 14.6 | 10.2 |
10. Exist in (very few/many) colors | − | − | − | − | 6.5 | 6.1 |
11. (Has/has no) sunroof | − | − | − | + | 3.5 | 5.9 |
12. (Has/has no) cup-holders | − | − | − | − | 2.7 | 1.6 |
Appendix B: An example of the 48 sentences displayed in this order for one participant of Experiment 1. The symbols “+” and “–” indicate positive and negative values of the attributes, respectively. Positive attributes of the two best cars are written in bold and negative attribute are in italics. To increase the contrast with Cars 1 and 2, attribute descriptions for Cars 3 and 4 are in grey
+ For Car 4 service is good | − Car 4 is available in very few different colors |
+ Car 3 has plenty of legroom | − Car 4 has no cup holders |
+ Car 3 is new | + Car 2 has a good sound system |
+ Car 1 has good handling | − Car 3 has poor mileage |
− Car 2 is available in very few different colors | − Car 3 has poor handling |
+ Car 1 is good for the environment | + For Car 2 service is good |
− Car 2 has no cup holders | + Car 1 has a large trunk |
− With car 4 it is difficult to shift gears | + Car 4 has a sunroof |
− Car 3 has a small trunk | + With car 2 it is easy to change gears |
− Car 2 has no sunroof | − Car 1 has poor legroom |
+ Car 1 has good mileage | − Car 3 is not very good for the environment |
− Car 4 has a poor sound system | − Car 1 is old |
− Car 3 has no sunroof | + With car 3 it is easy to change gears |
− Car 4 is not very good for the environment | − Car 1 is available in very few different colors |
+ With car 1 it is easy to shift gears | + Car 4 has plenty of legroom |
− Car 2 has poor legroom | + Car 2 has good handling |
− Car 4 has poor handling | − Car 3 has a poor sound system |
− Car 4 has poor mileage | + Car 2 has good mileage |
− Car 2 is old | − Car 1 has no sunroof |
− Car 3 has no cup holders | − Car 1 has no cup holders |
− Car 3 is available in very few different colors | + Car 2 is good for the environment |
+ Car 2 has a large trunk | − Car 4 is old |
+ Car 1 has a good sound system | + Car 4 has a large trunk |
+ For Car 1 service is good | + For Car 3 service is good |
Appendix C: Distribution of positive and negative attributes across the four different cars in Experiment 2 and mean scores of influence obtained by each attribute at the end of the experiment
Attributes | Car 1 (Best) | Car 2 (Best) | Car 3 | Car 4 | Score (Experiment 2) | Score (Rey et al., 2009) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. (Poor/good) mileage | + | + | − | − | 17.7 | 18.3 |
2. (Poor/good) handling | + | + | − | − | 15.3 | 16.5 |
3. (Poor/good) for the environment | + | + | − | − | 15.6 | 15.6 |
4. (Poor/good) sound system | − | − | + | − | 10.6 | 14.6 |
5. (Poor/good) service | − | − | − | + | 12.4 | 14.3 |
6. (Easy/difficult) to shift gears | − | − | + | + | 14.6 | 12.9 |
7. (Small/large) trunk | − | − | + | + | 11.5 | 12.3 |
8. (Little/plenty of) legroom | − | − | + | − | 10.9 | 11.8 |
9. (Old/new) car | − | − | − | + | 8.3 | 10.2 |
10. Exist in (very few/many) colors | − | − | + | + | 6.0 | 6.1 |
11. (Has/has no) sunroof | − | − | − | + | 3.3 | 5.9 |
12. (Has/has no) cup-holders | − | − | + | − | 2.0 | 1.6 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rey, A., Le Goff, K., Abadie, M. et al. The primacy order effect in complex decision making. Psychological Research 84, 1739–1748 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01178-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01178-2