Notes on (Luce 1998) – Choosing to Avoid

Summary

This paper says that when people face tough consumer choices (like safety vs. cost in a car purchase), they feel stressed because they can’t have everything they want. To cope, they might think harder (taking more time) or avoid the choice by sticking with what they have or delaying. The stress is worse when the decision involves important things, and imagining bad outcomes (like a car crash) makes it even harder. Businesses can help by offering easier options or framing choices to feel less scary, and researchers can use this to understand other emotional decisions.

Main Topic or Phenomenon Addressed

The paper investigates how consumers cope with emotionally challenging consumer decisions involving trade-offs between attributes linked to highly valued goals, such as safety versus cost in automobile purchases. It focuses on the phenomenon of decision avoidance, where consumers choose options like maintaining the status quo or delaying decisions to minimize negative emotions arising from explicit trade-offs.

Theoretical Construct or Framework

The core framework is based on Lazarus’s (1991) theory of emotion elicitation, adapted to consumer decision-making. Key constructs include:

• Primary Appraisal: The assessment of which goals are relevant and threatened in a decision, influencing the intensity and negativity of emotions. Attributes tied to important goals (e.g., safety) increase emotional potential.
• Secondary Appraisal: The evaluation of coping options and prospects, which mitigates negative emotions based on perceived ability to manage the situation.
• Problem-Focused Coping: Direct actions to resolve the decision situation (e.g., increased deliberation time).
• Emotion-Focused Coping: Indirect actions to reduce negative emotions, particularly through avoidance (e.g., choosing the status quo) or reappraising the situation’s meaning.

The framework posits that decision conflict, defined as negative correlation between attribute values (e.g., high safety vs. low price), triggers negative emotions, and consumers use coping strategies to manage these emotions.

Key Findings

1. Emotion Elicitation (H1): Higher trade-off difficulty attributes (e.g., safety vs. styling) elicit greater negative emotions, amplified by imagery processing instructions that encourage vivid consideration of goal-related consequences.
2. Coping through Avoidance (H2): The availability of avoidant options (e.g., status quo, postponement, or dominant alternatives) reduces negative emotions by providing an emotionally easier choice.
3. Decision Time (H3): Higher trade-off difficulty increases response times, reflecting problem-focused coping through greater deliberation.
4. Avoidant Choice (H4): Consumers are more likely to choose avoidant options in decisions with higher trade-off difficulty, especially under imagery instructions, as these options facilitate emotion-focused coping.
5. Mediation Effects: Choosing avoidant options mitigates retrospective negative emotions, and increased deliberation (response time) mediates the preference for avoidant choices in high-threat scenarios.

Boundary Conditions or Moderators

• Trade-Off Difficulty: Attributes linked to highly valued goals (e.g., safety) increase negative emotions and avoidance compared to less valued attributes (e.g., styling). This moderates the emotional impact and coping strategy selection.
• Imagery Processing Instructions: Instructions to vividly imagine decision consequences amplify the effect of trade-off difficulty on negative emotions and avoidance, as they enhance primary appraisal of goal threats.
• Availability of Avoidant Options: The presence of options like status quo or postponement reduces negative emotions and increases avoidance, moderating the emotional impact of high-conflict decisions.

These moderators influence the main effect by either intensifying the emotional threat (trade-off difficulty, imagery) or providing mechanisms to mitigate it (avoidant options).

Building on, Extending, or Challenging Previous Work

The paper builds on Lazarus’s (1991) emotion theory, applying it to consumer decision-making, which is novel compared to prior focus on ambient affect (e.g., Gardner 1985; Isen 1984). It extends behavioral decision research (e.g., Tversky & Shafir 1992; Dhar 1997) by linking decision avoidance to emotion-focused coping rather than just cognitive conflict. It challenges earlier findings (e.g., Bettman et al. 1993) that increased conflict leads to trade-off-confronting strategies, showing that in emotionally laden contexts, avoidance is preferred. The paper also integrates insights from moral decision-making (Baron & Spranca 1997; Tetlock 1991), emphasizing protected attributes’ role in emotional resistance to trade-offs.

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper introduces a comprehensive framework for understanding how task-related emotions influence consumer decisions, emphasizing emotion-focused coping through avoidance. By integrating Lazarus’s appraisal theory with consumer choice, it provides a nuanced explanation of why and how consumers avoid trade-offs in high-stakes decisions. It distinguishes task-related from ambient affect, highlighting unique coping mechanisms and establishing trade-off difficulty as a key driver of emotional and behavioral responses.

Major Managerial Implication

Marketers should recognize that consumers may avoid decisions involving emotionally charged trade-offs (e.g., safety vs. cost) by sticking to the status quo or delaying purchases. To reduce avoidance, firms can:

• Offer dominant or compromise options that minimize trade-off conflict.
• Frame decisions to reduce perceived threat (e.g., emphasizing safety certifications).
• Provide clear justifications for choices (e.g., highlighting a car’s balanced attributes), easing emotional burden and encouraging purchase.

Theoretical Factors Not Explored

Several factors could influence the relationship between trade-off difficulty and decision avoidance but were not examined:

• Individual Differences in Emotion Regulation: Traits like emotional intelligence or tolerance for ambiguity might moderate the extent to which consumers experience negative emotions or rely on avoidance. High emotional intelligence could reduce avoidance by enhancing problem-focused coping.
• Cultural Values: Collectivist cultures, which prioritize group harmony, might amplify avoidance in decisions affecting others (e.g., family safety), while individualist cultures might favor confrontation. Cultural norms around expressing emotions could also shape coping strategies.
• Decision Context Publicity: The paper mentions public decisions briefly but doesn’t explore how social visibility (e.g., choosing a car others will judge) might heighten emotional threat and avoidance, especially for protected attributes.
• Temporal Pressure: Time constraints could force trade-off confrontation, reducing avoidance, or heighten stress, increasing reliance on status quo options.
• Prior Emotional State: Pre-existing negative emotions (e.g., stress from unrelated events) could amplify primary appraisal of threat, increasing avoidance, while positive emotions might encourage exploration of trade-offs.

Reference

Luce, Mary Frances (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409–33.