When Choice Closure Reduces Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Decision Outcome Valence

Previous research has shown that choice closure, defined as the psychological process by which consumers come to perceive a decision to be final, increases satisfaction with difficult decisions (Gu, Botti, and Faro forthcoming). This positive effect is explained by the fact that the sense of completion associated with choice closure inhibits comparisons between the chosen and the forgone options after the decision has been made. As comparisons tend to reduce an option’s attractiveness (Brenner, Rottenstreich, and Sood 1999), choice closure enhances satisfaction with the selected option. However, research has also found that comparisons do not always decrease the evaluation of the option being compared (Hsee and Leclerc 1998; Simonson 1989), suggesting that choice closure may, under some conditions, be detrimental to satisfaction. In this paper, we examine the role of decision outcome valence in moderating the effect of choice closure on satisfaction. Literature has shown that a negative outcome causes individuals to engage in upward counterfactuals, resulting in lower satisfaction with the outcome, whereas a positive outcome elicits downward counterfactuals, leading to greater satisfaction (Markman et al. 1993). As choice closure works through the inhibition of these comparisons, we predict that consumers experiencing closure will be more satisfied than those not experiencing closure when the outcome is negative, but less satisfied when the outcome is positive. We also predict that consumers may not anticipate the effects of choice closure, and therefore act contrary to what may enhance their satisfaction. Prior research shows that negative, as opposed to positive, affect, is more prone to activate counterfactual comparisons (Roese 1997). As negative (positive) outcome is likely to be accompanied with negative (positive) affect, we argue that when given the opportunity of reaching choice closure, consumers may avoid it and engage in more comparisons when the outcome is negative, and instead look for closure when the decision outcome is positive.