title: Job-decision inconsistencies involving social comparison information: the role of dominating alternatives.
abstract: Previous research on joint versus separate preference reversals has demonstrated that individuals focus on social comparison information when they are evaluating a single option but focus on absolute salary when they are considering more than 1 option. Study 1 demonstrates that social comparison information is important in multiple option scenarios when an option favorable on social comparison dominates an inferior, 3rd alternative. Study 2 examines why dominating alternatives are so attractive by investigating the role that the value-shift, weight-change, and emergent-value models play in explaining the pattern of results obtained in Study 1. Results provide support for the value-shift and emergent-value models and further suggest that these 2 models may be interrelated, with justification (emergent-value model) mediating the relationship between the attractiveness of the attributes (value-shift model) and the attractiveness of the dominating alternative.
authors.affiliation: Management Department, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0399, USA. ann.e.tenbrunsel.1@nd.edu
authors.forename: Ann E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Tenbrunsel
authors.forename: Kristina A
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Diekmann
mesh_terms: D003163:Competitive Behavior; D003657:Decision Making; D004467:Economics; D004651:Employment; D006801:Humans; D012649:Self Concept; D012919:Social Behavior