IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v30y2009i6p840-858.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"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

Author

Listed:
  • Gould, Stephen J.
  • Kramer, Thomas

Abstract

Explanations for differences in preference reversals between separate and joint evaluations of options are generally based on the assumption that individuals rely on task-given attribute information in their value construction. However, decision-makers also draw on personally-salient, reflexive experiences not explicitly mentioned in the experimental task as inputs, which heretofore have not been investigated systematically. Further, interpretive approaches that might reveal such experiences generally have not been applied in the analysis of value judgments. Therefore, we study value construction processes in three types of preference reversal problems using written protocols. Our results demonstrate that task-based explanations for preference reversals are inversely weakened relative to the problems' complexity, while reflexive, experiential thoughts are increased. As such, the current approach provides new insight into the preference construction process and indicates some alternative reflexive factors and reference points that influence choice. The results also highlight that for any particular choice problem there exist distinct segments of decision-makers who differ in their value construction processes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:6:p:840-858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(09)00087-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Mick, David Glen & Fournier, Susan, 1998. "Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 123-143, September.
    2. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 2003. "Inductive Inference: An Axiomatic Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 1-26, January.
    3. Ranyard, Rob & Hinkley, Lisa & Williamson, Janis & McHugh, Sandie, 2006. "The role of mental accounting in consumer credit decision processes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 571-588, August.
    4. Shiell, Alan & Gold, Lisa, 2002. "Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 251-262, April.
    5. Mitchell, Deborah J & Kahn, Barbara E & Knasko, Susan C, 1995. "There's Something in the Air: Effects of Congruent or Incongruent Ambient Odor on Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(2), pages 229-238, September.
    6. Schunk, Daniel & Betsch, Cornelia, 2006. "Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 386-401, June.
    7. Ryan, Mandy & San Miguel, Fernando, 2000. "Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 305-317, June.
    8. Sen, Sankar & Gurhan-Canli, Zeynep & Morwitz, Vicki, 2001. "Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 399-417, December.
    9. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1996. "Act similarity in case-based decision theory (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(1), pages 47-62.
    10. 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.
    11. Sanbonmatsu, David M. & Kardes, Frank R. & Posavac, Steven S. & Houghton, David C., 1997. "Contextual Influences on Judgment Based on Limited Information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 251-264, March.
    12. Browne, Glenn J. & Pitts, Mitzi G., 2004. "Stopping rule use during information search in design problems," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 208-224, November.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    14. Sevdalis, Nick & Harvey, Nigel, 2006. "Determinants of willingness to pay in separate and joint evaluations of options: Context matters," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 377-385, June.
    15. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia J., 2004. "Effect propensity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 156-174, November.
    16. Dale Griffin & Wendy Liu & Uzma Khan, 2005. "A New Look at Constructed Choice Processes," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 321-333, December.
    17. Lynch, John G, Jr & Srull, Thomas K, 1982. "Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 18-37, June.
    18. Broniarczyk, Susan M & Alba, Joseph W, 1994. "The Role of Consumers' Intuitions in Inference Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 393-407, December.
    19. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    20. Irwin, Julie R & Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah & McClelland, Gary H., 1993. "Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
    21. 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.
    22. Allen, Douglas E, 2002. "Toward a Theory of Consumer Choice as Sociohistorically Shaped Practical Experience: The Fits-Like-a-Glove (FLAG) Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(4), pages 515-532, March.
    23. Dhar, Ravi & Nowlis, Stephen M & Sherman, Steven J, 1999. "Comparison Effects on Preference Construction," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 293-306, December.
    24. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    25. Simonson, Itamar, 2005. "In Defense of Consciousness: The Role of Conscious and Unconscious Inputs in Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1883, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    26. Lynch, John G, Jr & Chakravarti, Dipankar & Mitra, Anusree, 1991. "Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(3), pages 284-297, December.
    27. Wright, Peter, 1980. "Message-Evoked Thoughts: Persuasion Research Using Thought Verbalizations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 7(2), pages 151-175, Se.
    28. 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.
    29. Irwin, Julie R. & Baron, Jonathan, 2001. "Response Mode Effects and Moral Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 177-197, March.
    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. Gould, Stephen J., 2012. "The emergence of Consumer Introspection Theory (CIT): Introduction to a JBR special issue," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 453-460.

    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. Posavac, Steven S. & Kardes, Frank R. & Josko Brakus, J., 2010. "Focus induced tunnel vision in managerial judgment and decision making: The peril and the antidote," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 102-111, November.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2012. "Choice and individual welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1818-1849.
    5. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    6. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Toujours plus, toujours mieux ? Effet contre-intuitif de l'évaluation des attributs environnementaux du produit par le consommateur," Post-Print halshs-01185784, HAL.
    7. Botti, Simona & Hsee, Christopher K., 2010. "Dazed and confused by choice: How the temporal costs of choice freedom lead to undesirable outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 161-171, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Christopoulos, George & Kokkinaki, Flora & Harvey, Nigel & Sevdalis, Nick, 2011. "Paying for no reason? (Mis-)perceptions of product attributes in separate vs. joint product evaluation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 857-864.
    12. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2014. "Search for the underlying mechanism of framing effects in multi-alternative and multi-attribute decision situations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 378-385.
    13. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    14. Stamatogiannakis, Antonios & Chattopadhyay, Amitava & Chakravarti, Dipankar, 2018. "Attainment versus maintenance goals: Perceived difficulty and impact on goal choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 17-34.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Lijia Shi & Lisa A. House & Zhifeng Gao, 2013. "Impact of Purchase Intentions on Full and Partial Bids in BDM Auctions: Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 707-718, September.
    19. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    20. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation," Post-Print halshs-01185772, HAL.

    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:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:6:p:840-858. 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/joep .

    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.