Criteria instability and the isolated option effect
In two-stage choices, decision makers often compare a new (isolated) option with the winner from the first stage. Previous research has identified a choice advantage for an isolated option, ostensibly due to loss aversion. We propose an alternative mechanism suggesting that instability of the criteria used in each choice stage is the main driver of the isolated option effect. Results from a series of experiments support the criteria instability account and not loss aversion as the explanation for the isolated option effect.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 106 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hsee, Christopher K & Leclerc, France, 1998. " Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 175-86, September.
- Zhang, Jiao & Hsee, Christopher K. & Xiao, Zhixing, 2006. "The majority rule in individual decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 102-111, January.
- de Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Emans, Ben J. M. & van de Vliert, Evert, 1994. "Effects of Gain-Loss Frames in Negotiation: Loss Aversion, Mismatching, and Frame Adoption," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 90-107, October.
- Ariely, Dan & Zauberman, Gal, 2003. "Differential partitioning of extended experiences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 128-139, July.
- 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.
- Elrod, Terry & Johnson, Richard D. & White, Joan, 2004. "A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 1-19, September.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
- Gregory W. Fischer & Mary Frances Luce & Jianmin Jia, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 88-103, January.
- McCusker, Christopher & Carnevale, Peter J., 1995. "Framing in Resource Dilemmas: Loss Aversion and the Moderating Effects of Sanctions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 190-201, February.
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
- Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
- Nedungadi, Prakash, 1990. " Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(3), pages 263-76, December.
- Kahn, Barbara & Moore, William L & Glazer, Rashi, 1987. " Experiments in Constrained Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 96-113, June.
- Gregory W. Fischer & Jianmin Jia & Mary Frances Luce, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: The RandMAU Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(5), pages 669-684, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:106:y:2008:i:2:p:153-167. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.