Advertisement

The primacy order effect in complex decision making

  • Arnaud ReyEmail author
  • Kévin Le Goff
  • Marlène Abadie
  • Pierre Courrieu
Original Article
  • 37 Downloads

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.

Notes

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. Abadie, M., Waroquier, L., & Terrier, P. (2015). Information presentation format moderates the unconscious-thought effect: The role of recollection. Memory, 24(8), 1123–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Ambady, N., & Skowronski, J. J. (Eds.). (2008). First impressions. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peterson, C. R., & DuCharme, W. M. (1967). A primacy effect in subjective probability revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(1), 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). On the time course of perceptual choice: The leaky competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waroquier, L., Marchiori, D., Klein, O., & Cleeremans, A. (2009). Methodological pitfalls of the unconscious thought paradigm. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(7), 601–610.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie CognitiveCNRS, Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseille Cedex 03France

Personalised recommendations