{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02340702210663199, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.062992125984252, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Too Much Fit? How Regulatory Fit Can Turn Us Into Buridan’S Asses

People derive value from fulfilling their goals through means that fit their motivational or regulatory orientation. Such “value from fit” is typically found in studies that pair a regulatory orientation with a single means to achieve the goal. But what happens when there are multiple means to achieve the same goal? In this paper we investigate the consequences of such “too much fit” on people’s choices among multi-attribute stimuli. We show that too much fit arouses acute decision conflict, and evokes decision processes that result in a pronounced tendency to make counter-normative choices. We test our hypotheses using the attraction, compromise, and deferral paradigms from decision research.