Memory & Cognition

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 546–556 | Cite as

Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others

  • Eldar ShafirEmail author


A previously unobserved pattern of choice behavior is predicted and corroborated. In line with the principle of compatibility, according to which the weighting of inputs is enhanced by their compatibility with output, the positive and negative dimensions of options (their pros and cons) are expected to loom larger when one is choosing and when one is rejecting, respectively. Subjects are presented with pairs of options, one of which—theenriched option—has more positive as well as more negative dimensions than does the other,impoverished, option. Because positive dimensions are weighted more heavily in choosing than in rejecting, and negative dimensions are weighted more heavily in rejecting than in choosing, the enriched option tends to be chosen and rejected relatively more often than the impoverished option. These findings are extended to nonbinary decision problems, and their implications for the rational theory of choice and for everyday decisions are discussed.


Compatibility Effect Loss Aversion Negative Feature Negative Dimension Anticipate Regret 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty.Operations Research,30, 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyth-Marom, R., Austin, L., Fischhoff, B., Palmgren, C., & Jacobs-Quadrel, M. (in press). Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents.Developmental Psychology.Google Scholar
  3. Brainard, R. W., Irby, T. S., Fitts, P. M., &Alluisi, E. (1962). Some variables influencing the rate of gain of information.Journal of Experimental Psychology,63, 105–110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bursztajn, H., Chanowitz, B., Kaplan, E., Gutheil, T. G., Hamm, R. M., &Alexander, V. (1991). Medical and judicial perceptions of the risks associated with use of antipsychotic medication.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychology & the Law,19, 271–275.Google Scholar
  5. Coombs, C. H., Donnell, M. L., &Kirk, D. B. (1978). An experimental study of risk preference in lotteries.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunning, D., &Parpal, M. (1989). Mental addition versus subtraction in counterfactual reasoning: On assessing the impact of personal actions and life events.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,57, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Firrs, P. M., &Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology,46, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein, W. M. (1990). Judgments of relative importance in decision making: Global vs local interpretations of subjective weight.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,47, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., &Baker, S. M. (1989). The influence of unique features and direction of comparison on preferences.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,25, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huber, V. L., Neale, M. A., &Northcraft, G. B. (1987). Decision bias and personnel selection strategies.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,40, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., &Snell, J. (1990). Predicting utility. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.),Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel Einhom (pp. 295–310). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lichtenstein, S., &Slovic, P. (1973). Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas.Journal of Experimental Psychology,101, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loomes, G., &Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty.Economic Journal,92, 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Luce, R. D., &Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 249–410). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. March, J. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice.Bell Journal of Economics,9, 587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marley, A. A. J. (1968). Some probabilistic models of simple choice and ranking.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,5, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., &Tversky, A. (1988). On the framing of medical decisions. In D. Bell, H. Raiffa, & A. Tversky (Eds.),Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions (pp. 562–568). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1990). Similarity involving attributes and relations: Judgments of similarity and difference are not inverses.Psychological Science,1, 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mueller, D. C. (1989).Public choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior.Psychological Bulletin,92, 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990).Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  24. Schkade, D. A., &Johnson, E. J. (1989). Cognitive processes in preference reversals.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,44, 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (in press). Reason-based choice.Cognition.Google Scholar
  26. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects.Journal of Consumer Research,16, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slovic, P. (1990). Choice. In D. Osherson & E. Smith (Eds.),An invitation to cognitive science: Vol. 3 (pp. 89–116). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., &Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Response mode, framing, and information-processing effects in risk assessment. In R. Hogarth (Ed.),New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Question framing and response consistency (pp. 21–36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Slovic, P., Griffin, D., &Tversky, A. (1990). Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. Hogarth (Ed.),Insights in decision making: Theory and applications (pp. 5–27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Slovic, P., &Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: A broader perspective.American Economic Review,73, 596–605.Google Scholar
  31. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice.Psychological Review,79, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tversky, A., &Gati, I. (1978). Studies of similarity. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 79–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions.Journal of Business,59, 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model.Quarterly Journal of Economics,107, 1039–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., &Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice.Psychological Review,95, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tversky, A., &Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty.Psychological Science,3, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tversky, A., Slovic, P., &Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversal.American Economic Review,80, 204–217.Google Scholar
  39. Viscusi, W. K., Magat, W. A., &Huber, J. (1987). An investigation of the rationality of consumer valuations of multiple health risks.Rand Journal of Economics,18, 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Von Neumann, J., &Morgenstern, O. (1947).Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wickens, C. D. (1984).Engineering psychology and human performance. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrinceton

Personalised recommendations