You wish to rent an apartment and the agent shows you descriptions of two one-bedroom

apartments in the same price range. Apartment A is superior in terms of size, public transport and closet space; Apart B scores highly for its stunning views, amount of sunlight and the stylish décor. How do you choose? If you use your head the “cognitive dimensions” of apartment A will win out, but if you follow your heart then the “affective dimensions” will prompt you to choose B.

It is well documented that consumer judgments and decisions can be made in either a cognitive, reason-based manner ̶ by carefully assessing and weighing the target attributes ̶ or in an affective, feeling-based manner – by using one’s subjective affective reactions toward the target or momentary feelings. Subsequent research has identified a number of unique properties associated with these two modes of decision making: affective, feeling-based decision making tends to be faster and more automatic, whereas cognitive, reason-based decision making is usually slower and more deliberate. There is also abundant research that explores the conditions under which consumers rely on feelings versus reasons in making decisions.

Jiewen Hong and Hannah H. Chang have gone a step further by identifying another factor that may influence consumers’ relative use of feeling-based versus reason-based: “self-construal”, which refers to how people view themselves in relation to others and the social environment. Past research suggests that self-construal is important in certain aspects of consumer behavior, such as brand choice, risk propensity, response to persuasive messages, price-quality judgments and price cues. This has focused on the impact of self-construal on cognitive styles, and on the downstream consequences, such as price-quality judgments. Hong and Chang have extended this research by examining the impact of self-construal on the relative reliance on cognitive versus affective modes of decision making. They hypothesize and demonstrate that consumers with an independent self-construal are more inclined to rely on affective feelings, while those with interdependent self-construal are more likely to rely on cognitive reasoning.

This was tested in a series of six experiments that involved various scenarios, including the apartment illustrated above. The results provided evidence for the hypothesis that consumers with an independent self-construal are more likely to rely on their feelings, whereas consumers with an interdependent self-construal are more likely to rely on reasons in making judgments and decisions. They also showed that these effects are moderated by decision focus -- whether the decision is made for oneself or for others – and the need for justification during decision making.

This research contributes to the literature on affect and decision making on multiple fronts. It identifies self-construal as an antecedent to consumers’ relative reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making, and extends these findings by identifying self-construal as an important moderator. The findings suggest that that consumers are more likely to rely on feelings when they are making decisions for themselves than when they are making decisions for others, and this is contingent on the self-construal accessible at the time of the decision. While independent consumers rely more on their feelings when making decisions for themselves, interdependent consumers are less inclined to rely on their feelings irrespective of for whom the decision is made.

The findings predict that consumers who tend to rely more on feelings than reasons might be more risk averse. Indirect evidence to this proposition comes from research that has shown that Americans are more risk averse than Chinese in choosing between risky financial options and sure outcomes. To the extent that the American culture is associated with an independent self-construal and the Chinese culture is associated with an interdependent self-construal Hong and Chang’s research offers a potential novel process explanation for this observed cultural difference in risk preferences.