Explanation of Study

The study you participated in today examined the effects of feature matching in comparisons. Feature matching is a cognitive strategy that people use to compare options. When people feature match, they match up the features of one option with the features of another option. Those feature that match up are shared; those that don't are unique. Past research has shown that people use the two kinds of features differently. When people make preference judgments--that is, pick the option they like best--they tend to ignore the shared features and focus almost exclusively on the unique features, with particular emphasis on the unique features of the second option they saw. Thus, if people are asked which of two options they like best, and the two options have shared positive features and unique negative features, they will like the first option they see the best. This is because they focus so much on the unique features (which in this example are negative) of the second option. If, on the other hand, options share negative features and have unique positive features, then the second option that people see tends to be their favorite. This is because, once again, the unique features of the second receive the most focus, and in this case those features are positive. The upshot of this phenomenon is that options that would be rated similarly if they were seen in isolation may not be rated the same way if they are seen together in the context of a preference judgment.

The study today was examining ways to get people making preference judgments not to ignore the shared features in two options. Although people ignore the shared features in making their ratings, they do not forget about them--in fact, there is even some suggestion that they remember the shared features better, in part because they have seen them twice in the descriptions of both options, rather than the unique features, which have been seen in only one option description. Some of you were asked to analyze why you felt the way you did about the two options before rating how much you liked them; some of you were not. This "reasons" manipulation--asking people to list the reasons why they feel the way the do--has been shown in previous studies (e.g. Wilson, Hodges, & LaFleur, 1995) to cause people to focus on the most available, easy to verbalize reasons that would justify a choice, but these reasons are not necessarily always the reasons that normally drive people's ratings if they weren't asked to list reasons. Thus, those of you who were asked to list reasons were expected to include the shared features among your reasons (because they would highly available, having been seen twice). By listing them, your attention would be refocused on shared features, and less concentration would be put on the unique features, and we would not expect you to show the order effects described above.

Feature matching in decisions can have important implications. The paradigm we describe above occurs naturally in a variety of real life situations--running the gamut from what you order in a restaurant to whom you vote for president. Ultimately, we hope this research will be used to explain why people choose the way they do, and maybe even to improve people's decision-making abilities.

If you would like to know more about feature-matching, you can talk to Sara Hodges (6-4919, #331 Straub). Or, you might want to take a look at the reference listed below on feature matching (the other reference is on analyzing reasons). One final request: We would appreciate it if you would please NOT DISCUSS THIS STUDY WITH OTHER STUDENTS IN THE SUBJECT POOL. It is important that all participants have roughly the same level of knowledge about what we are studying, and if some people knew our hypotheses in advance, it could make our data invalid. Thank you for your time today.
References:

Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 121-141.

Wilson, T. D., Hodges, S. D. & LaFleur, S. J. (1995). Effects of introspecting about reasons: Inferring attitudes from accessible thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 16-28.