Individuals often criticize others’ choices and seek to defend their own.  In theory, the ease of criticizing a particular choice should correspond to the ease of defending this choice.  However, we propose that differences in the types of arguments put forth in choice criticism and defense often result in a systematic discrepancy in the ease with which of these two tasks are performed. We argue that criticism arguments tend to be based on norms but defense arguments on idiosyncratic preferences, such that the nature of the chosen option has a large impact when criticizing, but little effect when defending choices. A series of studies of choices between conventional and unconventional options demonstrates that options that are relatively easier to criticize may not be more difficult to defend. Our final study supports an information asymmetry mechanism driving the observed discrepancy between choice criticism and defense.

Many consumer decision making studies begin with the identification of a dimension on which options differ (e.g., compromise versus extreme, utilitarian versus hedonic, sure versus risky), followed by an analysis of the factors that influence preferences along that dimension. Building on a conceptual analysis of a diverse set of problems, we propose that they all can be classified based on their levels of self-expression and other-expression (or conventionality). Accordingly, as we show in four studies, these problem types respond similarly to manipulations that trigger or suppress self-expression. Specifically, priming self-expression systematically increases the share of the self-expressive options (e.g., extreme, risky, and hedonic) across choice problems. Conversely, expecting to be evaluated decreases the share of the self-expressive options across the various choice dilemmas. Our findings highlight the importance of seeking underlying shared features across different consumer choice problems, instead of treating each type in isolation.

Individuals are generally reluctant to trade goods—a phenomenon identified as the endowment effect. This paper focuses on consumers’ puzzling reluctance to exchange gambles, and in particular lottery tickets with identical distribution (i.e., same odds of winning), and identifies the ticket’s vividness as an important moderator. Three studies demonstrate that individuals are more willing to exchange less vivid lottery tickets (e.g., tickets concealed in envelopes, or tickets with an unknown number) compared to more vivid tickets (e.g., tickets not concealed in envelopes, or tickets with a known number)  when offered an incentive to exchange. Moreover, this effect is mediated by anticipated regret, such that less regret is anticipated when exchanging less vivid tickets, thus increasing individuals’ willingness to exchange tickets.

We propose that marketing food as having instrumental, health benefits undermines preschoolers’ enjoyment of this food and decreases their motivation to consume it. In support of this proposition, a survey study with parents of preschoolers finds that emphasizing health benefits does not increase consumption of vegetables above and beyond merely serving them (study 1). Two experiments involving actual consumption then show that preschoolers (age 3-5) rate crackers as less tasty and consume fewer of them when these children receive information on the crackers’ instrumental, health benefits, as opposed to no information on benefits or information on the crackers’ experiential, taste benefits (studies 2-3). These results add to the understanding of how young children respond to food marketing by deciding what and how much to consume. We discuss how children’s decision processes may differ from adults’.

To portray themselves in a favorable light, people often choose options with socially-desirable symbolic qualities. But when all the options in the choice-set have similar socially-desirable attributes, how might people choose? We propose that people may use the degree of variety in their selections to convey information, both to others and to themselves, about the strength of their preferences for options in the category and the extent to which the qualities of those options are related to their self-concept. Specifically, whereas prior research has shown that people unidirectionally choose more variety when self-presentation cues are present, we show in a series of field and lab studies that people choose less variety when they want to signal strong preferences for options in the category and to associate themselves with the symbolic qualities of those options. These findings have important implications for theories of variety-seeking and self-presentation, as well as for marketing practice.