What do these clinical trial results mean? How product efficacy judgments are affected by data partitioning, framing, and quantification
Organizations often present data related to clinical trials, and other product efficacy information, in partitioned or aggregated formats, as successes or failures, and as frequencies or percentages. We examine how such different data presentation formats might interact to influence product efficacy judgments. The results of five experiments indicate that partitioned (vs. aggregated) frequency data affect judgments regarding perceived product efficacy and these effects are moderated by data frames (success vs. failure) and quantification (frequencies vs. percentages). Specifically, success-framed, partitioned, frequency data enhance product efficacy judgments and choice, while failure-framed, partitioned, frequency data have the opposite effects. However, these effects get attenuated when data are aggregated or presented as percentages.
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): 117 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|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.:
- Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
- Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages S225-50, October.
- Hoch, Stephen J & Ha, Young-Won, 1986. " Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 221-33, September.
- Yinlong Zhang & Vikas Mittal, 2005. "Decision Difficulty: Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 465-472, December.
- Ellen Peters & Irwin P. Levin, 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
- Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. " How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(3), pages 374-78, December.
- Dobbs, Ian M, 1991. "A Bayesian Approach to Decision-Making under Ambiguity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 58(232), pages 417-40, November.
- William Boulding & Ajay Kalra & Richard Staelin, 1999. "The Quality Double Whammy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 463-484.
- Pechmann, Cornelia & Ratneshwar, S, 1992. " Consumer Covariation Judgments: Theory or Data Driven?," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(3), pages 373-86, December.
- Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
- Janiszewski, Chris & Silk, Tim & Cooke, Alan D J, 2003. " Different Scales for Different Frames: The Role of Subjective Scales and Experience in Explaining Attribute-Framing Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(3), pages 311-25, December.
- Menon, Geeta & Block, Lauren G & Ramanathan, Suresh, 2002. " We're at As Much Risk As We Are Led to Believe: Effects of Message Cues on Judgments of Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(4), pages 533-49, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:117:y:2012:i:2:p:341-350. 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.