Too close to call: Spatial distance between options influences choice difficulty

Iris K. Schneider*, Julia Stapels, Sander L. Koole, Norbert Schwarz

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

89 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In language, people often refer to decision difficulty in terms of spatial distance. Specifically, decision-difficulty is expressed as proximity, for instance when people say that a decision was “too close to call”. Although these expressions are metaphorical, we argue, in line with research on conceptual metaphor theory, that they reflect how people think about difficult decisions. Thus, here we examine whether close spatial distance can actually make decision-making harder. In six experiments (total N = 672), participants chose between two choice options presented either close together or far apart. As predicted, close (rather than far) choice options led to more difficulty, both in self-report (Experiment 1A–1C) and behavioral measures (decision-time, Experiment 2 and 3). Identifying a boundary condition, we show that close choice options lead to more difficulty only for within-category choices (Experiment 3). The too-close-to-call effect is theoretically and methodologically relevant for a broad array of research where choice options are visually presented, ranging from social cognition, judgment and decision-making to more applied settings in consumer psychology and marketing.

Original languageEnglish
Article number103939
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Experimental Social Psychology
Volume87
Early online date19 Dec 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2020

Funding

We gratefully acknowledge Lotte Veenstra, Mandy Tjew A Sin, Caroline Schlinkert, Isabel van Oorschot, Joyce van Brecht, for their assistance with data collection. Furthermore, we are grateful to the members of the SEEP Lab at the Mind and Society Center at the University of Southern California for the invaluable feedback they provided on multiple occasions during this project. This work was facilitated by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Rubicon Grant awarded Schneider (# 446-13-015 ) and a Consolidator Grant from the European Research Council to Sander L. Koole ( ERC-2011-StG_20101124 ). Appendix A Baked goods used in Experiment 1C Unlabelled Image Appendix B Pairs used in Experiment 2 Image 1 Appendix C The table below shows the possible locations of each of the stimulus pairs. The first row indicates the 12 different positions possible on the screen, each with the location of the center of the position in pixels. The row marked with close pairs indicates the 4 different positions of close pairs. The row marked with Far pairs indicates the 4 possible locations for far pairs. Pairs are indicated by similar letters. Thus, as an example in the CLOSE condition, for pair A one stimulus would appear at the 240 pixel position, and one stimulus at the 400 pixel position. As an example in the FAR condition, for pair A one stimulus would appear at the 80 pixel position, and one stimulus at the 720 pixel position Unlabelled Image Appendix D Object pairs used in Experiment 3 Image 2

FundersFunder number
Lotte Veenstra
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
University of Southern California
European Research CouncilERC-2011-StG_20101124
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek446-13-015

    Keywords

    • Choice
    • Consumer behavior
    • Decision-making
    • Metaphor
    • Spatial distance

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Too close to call: Spatial distance between options influences choice difficulty'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this