Special Session Summary Consumer Decision Strategies Under Conflict

SESSION OVERVIEW The three papers in this session address decision strategies that people use when they are confronted with different types of conflict. When consumers are faced with purchase decisions, some type of conflict is inherent. Options that present the most positive attributes also may naturally contain negative elements. For instance, the designer sweater may also pose a challenge to the budget; the beautiful table you’d like may have been made with wood from an endangered rainforest, etc. How do consumers cope with these sorts of conflicts? These three papers suggest that consumers utilize cognitive coping skills to protect themselves from the affect inherent in the conflict. The papers address a coping strategy at each of the three levels of the decision process. Meloy and Russo’s paper shows that, when available, decision framing can make a big difference. By reframing the decision task to be compatible with the valence of the options, consumers experience less conflict and have more confidence in their decision. Ehrich and Irwin’s paper shows that, when faced with a decision they cannot reframe, consumers will implicitly and explicitly avoid information that has the potential to cause conflict. Finally, Mukhopadhyay and Johar’s paper shows that, if the attribute information cannot be avoided, consumers will engage in complex justification strategies aimed at reducing the conflict. In the first paper, Meloy and Russo showed the importance of decision framing in choices between negative and positive options. When people are asked to choose among negative options (“burdens”) or to reject positive options (“benefits”), they experience negative consequences, such as conflict, confusion, and lowered confidence. On the other hand, when they are asked to reject negative options or choose among positive options, they cope much better, affectively and cognitively. Note, of course, that the framing of the task does not change the informational content of the decision. Thus, this work suggests that decision conflict may be avoided by reframing the question to be compatible with the valence of the options. Reframing of the situation is not always possible because the options themselves may contain both positive and negative elements. In the second paper, Ehrich and Irwin showed that, in this situation, consumers avoid having to use information that causes conflict. It was found that consumers willingly used the conflict causing information when it was presented to them prior to a choice task, but would specifically avoid requesting the information if they were told it was available. Ironically, they discovered that these findings are especially true for respondents who value the attribute that is causing the conflict (that is, respondents who are experiencing increased conflict). For example, people who were very concerned about the protection of endangered rainforests would avoid information about the source of the wood used to make a desk while consumers who felt that child labor was something to be highly concerned about avoided information about the labor conditions in the plants that manufactured cell phones on which they were deciding. Consumers were found to avoid the information explicitly (by not asking for the attribute information) and implicitly (by forgetting or misremembering) the attribute information. The third paper, by Mukhopadhyay and Johar, consumers are faced with decisions with full attribute information that cannot be reframed. How do they cope with decision conflict in this situation? In several studies, the authors show that decision justification plays a large role. When consumers can justify their decisions, they experience less conflict and emotion. Note that these justifications are coping mechanisms, not (necessarily) earmarks for actual utility maximization strategies. For instance, the justifications become especially necessary when the conflict has been primed by a previous related conflict that did not lead to purchase. Discussion leader, Baba Shiv, did a great job of tying the three papers together while noting the importance of studying how conflict impacts the strategies that consumers use in their decision making. He also answered audience questions and discussed future research directions for this area of consumer research.