Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?


Author Info

  • Hsee, Christopher K
  • Leclerc, France
Registered author(s):


    This research examines whether each of two different options of comparable overall quality will be perceived more positively when presented in isolation and evaluated separately (separate evaluation) or when juxtaposed and evaluated side by side (joint evaluation). Six studies, involving either judgment or choice as the dependent variable, reveal a general principle: If the focal options are already attractive (relative to their natural reference) in separate evaluation, then subjecting these options to joint evaluation will hurt their attractiveness. If the focal options are unattractive (relative to their reference) in separate evaluation, subjecting them to joint evaluation will enhance their attractiveness. Copyright 1998 by the University of Chicago.

    Download Info

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal Journal of Consumer Research.

    Volume (Year): 25 (1998)
    Issue (Month): 2 (September)
    Pages: 175-86

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:ucp:jconrs:v:25:y:1998:i:2:p:175-86

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page:

    Related research



    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.


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

    Cited by:
    1. Barbos, Andrei, 2010. "Context effects: A representation of choices from categories," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(3), pages 1224-1243, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Kwon, Kyoung-Nan & Lee, Jinkook, 2009. "The effects of reference point, knowledge, and risk propensity on the evaluation of financial products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 719-725, July.
    5. L. Lessassy & A. Jolibert, 2010. "L'influence de la marque, de la juxtaposition et de la coordination sur l'évaluation et l'intention d'achat : une approche expérimentale en magasin," Post-Print halshs-00534776, HAL.
    6. Palmeira, Mauricio M. & Krishnan, H. Shanker, 2008. "Criteria instability and the isolated option effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 153-167, July.
    7. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    10. Shahar Ayal & Guy Hochman & Dan Zakay, 2011. "Two sides of the same coin: Information processing style and reverse biases," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(4), pages 295-306, June.
    11. Larson, Ronald B., 2006. "Core Principles for Supermarket Aisle Management," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 37(01), March.
    12. Steven Posavac & Frank Kardes & David Sanbonmatsu & Gavan Fitzsimons, 2005. "Blissful Insularity: When Brands are Judged in Isolation from Competitors," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 87-97, April.
    13. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    14. Bartels, Daniel M., 2006. "Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 76-95, May.
    15. Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2002. "Negative-based prominence: the role of negative features in matching and choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 643-666, July.
    16. 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.


    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jconrs:v:25:y:1998:i:2:p:175-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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