IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v153y2019icp63-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond preference reversal: Distinguishing justifiability from evaluability in joint versus single evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Xilin
  • Hsee, Christopher K.

Abstract

Extensive existing research has studied how decisions differ between joint evaluation (JE) and single evaluation (SE), but most of the research aims to demonstrate preference reversals between two alternatives that vary on two attributes simultaneously. Thus, extant research cannot tell whether the reversal occurs because one of the attributes has a greater effect in JE than in SE, or the other attribute has a greater effect in SE than in JE, or both. Going beyond preference reversals, this research examines options that vary on only one attribute and studies whether the single attribute has a greater effect in JE or SE. We posit that any single attribute has two underlying characteristics—evaluability (i.e., whether people can evaluate a given value of the attribute without having to compare it with other values) and justifiability (i.e., whether people believe they should base their decisions on the attribute). Whether the single attribute has a greater effect in JE or SE depends on both the attribute’s evaluability and justifiability. Specifically, (a) a high-justifiability/low-evaluability attribute (e.g., whether a candidate for a programming job has written 100 or 200 programs) has a greater effect in JE than in SE, and (b) a low-justifiability/high-evaluability attribute (e.g., whether the candidate belongs to a discriminated-against minority group) has a greater effect in SE than in JE. While the first proposition has been tested in prior research on evaluability, the second has not. Four experiments, including one in a naturally-occurring setting and another with orthogonal manipulation of evaluability and justifiability, tested and supported these propositions, especially the second.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2019. "Beyond preference reversal: Distinguishing justifiability from evaluability in joint versus single evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 63-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:153:y:2019:i:c:p:63-74
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597818302929
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tobias Krüger & André Mata & Max Ihmels, 2014. "The Presenter's Paradox Revisited: An Evaluation Mode Account," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(4), pages 1127-1136.
    2. David S. Abrams & Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2012. "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 347-383.
    3. Hsee, Christopher K., 1995. "Elastic Justification: How Tempting but Task-Irrelevant Factors Influence Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 330-337, June.
    4. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    5. Hsee, Christopher K & Leclerc, France, 1998. "Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 175-186, September.
    6. Iris Bohnet & Alexandra van Geen & Max Bazerman, 2016. "When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1225-1234, May.
    7. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "Elastic Justification: How Unjustifiable Factors Influence Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 122-129, April.
    8. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
    9. Catherine W. M. Yeung & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Attribute Evaluability and the Range Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 363-369, December.
    10. Shaffer, Victoria A. & Arkes, Hal R., 2009. "Preference reversals in evaluations of cash versus non-cash incentives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 859-872, December.
    11. Christopher K. Hsee & Jiao Zhang & Liangyan Wang & Shirley Zhang, 2013. "Magnitude, Time, and Risk Differ Similarly between Joint and Single Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 172-184.
    12. Tobias Krüger & André Mata & Max Ihmels, 2014. "The Presenter's Paradox Revisited: An Evaluation Mode Account," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(4), pages 1127-1136.
    13. Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Moran, Elizabeth, 2001. "The Evaluability Hypothesis Revisited: Joint and Separate Evaluation Preference Reversal as a Function of Attribute Importance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 216-233, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    2. Glen William Spiteri, 2022. "Does the evaluability bias hold when giving to animal charities?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(2), pages 315-330, March.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:315-330 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Lee, Logan M. & Waddell, Glen R., 2021. "Diversity and the timing of preference in hiring decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 432-459.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tan, Huimin & Lv, Xingyang & Liu, Xiaoyan & Gursoy, Dogan, 2018. "Evaluation nudge: Effect of evaluation mode of online customer reviews on consumers’ preferences," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 29-40.
    2. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2021. "Free-riding and cost-bearing in discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 80-90.
    3. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:937-961 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:937-961 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mao, Wen, 2016. "Sometimes “Fee” Is Better Than “Free”: Token Promotional Pricing and Consumer Reactions to Price Promotion Offering Product Upgrades," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 173-184.
    6. Kapoor, Ankur & Sahay, Arvind & Singh, Nandini C. & Chandrasekhar Pammi, V.S. & Banerjee, Prantosh, 2023. "The neural correlates and the underlying processes of weak brand choices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    7. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    8. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    9. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1113-1154 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lee, Logan M. & Waddell, Glen R., 2021. "Diversity and the timing of preference in hiring decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 432-459.
    12. Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
    13. Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. & Pracejus, John W. & Shen, Yingtao, 2008. "Why more can be less: An inference-based explanation for hyper-subadditivity in bundle valuation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 233-246, March.
    14. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    15. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    18. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    19. Peggy J. Liu & Kelly L. Haws & Karen Scherr & Joseph P. Redden & James R. Bettman & Gavan J. Fitzsimons, 2019. "The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3353-3381, July.
    20. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    21. Weber, Martin & Mueller-Dethard, Jan, 2020. "The Portfolio Composition Effect," CEPR Discussion Papers 15012, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    22. Eyal Gamliel & Eyal Pe'er, 2021. "When two wrongs make a right: The efficiency-consumption gap under separate vs. joint evaluations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 94-113, January.
    23. Shaffer, Victoria A. & Arkes, Hal R., 2009. "Preference reversals in evaluations of cash versus non-cash incentives," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 859-872, December.
    24. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:153:y:2019:i:c:p:63-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.