Research Dialogue Selective versus comparative processing ☆ Frank R. Kardes University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA Received 14 August 2012; accepted 9 October 2012 Available online 12 October 2012 Abstract Simonson et al. (forthcoming) propose a new theory of comparison selection that explains which particular alternatives will be considered in a wide variety of judgment and choice tasks. Comparison selection depends on the latitude of acceptance, comparison fluency, and the interaction between these factors. Importantly, these factors integrate a wide variety of seemingly unrelated variables, and the theory is useful for generating novel hypotheses. However, because comparative processing occurs relatively infrequently, it is important to take a step back and specify the conditions under which comparative processing is likely to occur. Comparative processing is likely only when the motivation and the opportunity to process information carefully are high, when consumers lack knowledge about distributional standards, or when stimulus-based judgment is likely. The two types of processes have different antecedents, consequences, and implications for debiasing. © 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Judgment; Choice; Debiasing Simonson, Bettman, Kramer, and Payne (2013) provide a useful new theory of comparison selection, or the specific alternatives that are considered when comparative processing occurs. Comparison selection depends on the task's latitude of acceptance and comparison fluency. Originally, the latitude of acceptance referred to the perceived similarity between a consumer's initial attitude and the attitudinal position advocated in a persuasive message (Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957). Within the range of acceptable attitudinal positions, persuasion increases as similarity decreases (assimilation). Outside of this range, however, persuasion decreases as similarity decreases (contrast). Simonson et al. (2013) broadened this construct to include other types of similarity, including product attribute and product category similarity across alternatives. Simonson et al. (2013) also developed a broad conceptualization of comparison fluency, which is influenced by alignability (Markman & Loewenstein, 2010; Medin, Goldstone, & Markman, 1995), and by evaluability (Hsee & Zhang, 2010). Evaluability is influenced by mode of evaluation, prior knowledge, and the nature of the attribute. Joint evaluation, high prior knowledge, and attributes that have innate and stable psychophysical values facilitate evaluation. Comparison selection theory integrates a wide variety of seemingly unrelated variables, and explains many important phenomena — including asymmetric dominance, the compro- mise effect, variety seeking, and dollar versus percent discounts. Comparative processing is a key prerequisite for comparison selection. However, rather than performing effortful attribute- by-attribute comparisons across alternatives, consumers often engage in less effortful selective processing, in which a single focal alternative is judged in isolation on the basis of its own merits (Sanbonmatsu, Posavac, Kardes, & Mantel, 1998). In one of the earliest studies of the antecedents of selective vs. comparative processing, Sanbonmatsu, Kardes, and Gibson (1991) manipulated instructions to form a global impression of each alternative (impression set) or to memorize the specific attributes of each alternative (memory set). Selective processing was more likely and the direction-of-comparison effect, or the tendency to weigh the unique features of the subject (or the ☆ The author thanks Steve Posavac and David Sanbonmatsu for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. Frank R. Kardes (Frank.Kardes@uc.edu) is the Donald E. Weston Professor of Marketing at the Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0145, USA. E-mail address: kardesfr@ucmail.uc.edu. 1057-7408/$ -see front matter © 2012 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.10.003 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Journal of Consumer Psychology 23, 1 (2013) 150 – 153